HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No. 828 of 2003
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Electricity Board Officials (defendants) against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, passed in Original Suit No.80 of 1995 (O.P.No.70 of 1990), dated 05.08.2002.
The appellants herein are Electricity Board Officials (defendants) and respondents 1 to 3 herein are plaintiffs before the trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.2 herein (plaintiff No.2) died and respondent No.4 herein was impleaded as his legal representative as per the orders of this Court in ASMP No.1499 of 2017 dated 06.02.2019. Respondent No.3/plaintiff was declared as major as per the orders of this Court in ASMP No.1500 of 2017 dated 06.02.2019. For the sake of convenience, the ranks given to the parties in 2 O.S. No.80 of 1995, before the trial Court, will be adopted throughout this judgment.
The facts, in brief, are as under:
Plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed the above suit before the trial Court against the defendants claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are parents of one Nagaboina Yelamanda (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'); plaintiff No.3 and respondent No.4 herein. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 underwent family planning operation after the birth of the three children. On 06.10.1988, the son of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the deceased, aged about 5 years, after returning from school, went outside along with his sister (Plaintiff No.3), aged about 2 ½ years, and while they were playing in front of their house at Madhira, a live electric wire fixed to the Transformer situated by the side of the road, snapped and fell on the deceased and Plaintiff No.3, resulting instantaneous death 3 of the deceased and severe burn injuries to plaintiff No.3 and immediately plaintiff No.3 was shifted to the Government hospital, Madhira, where she had undergone treatment for six months. It is stated that plaintiff No.2 incurred an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses of plaintiff No.3, however, there was no development in the growth of the 3rd plaintiff. It is further stated that due to the incident, plaintiff No.3 sustained complete deformity and as such her marriage prospects have been greatly diminished. It is also stated that the deceased, who was aged five years by the date of his death, was a brilliant boy and he would have earned at least Rs.25/- per day and as such the plaintiffs had lost earnings of their deceased son. Thus, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest. Initially, they had filed OP No.70 of 1990 as indigent persons and the same was allowed.
4
The defendants in the written statement contended that on 06.10.1988 at about 6.00 P.M. there was heavy gale and wind and as such one phase conductor was cut and snapped near the L.T. Pin Inculator of S3 wire line coming from Distribution Transformer at Rayapatnam road in Madhira due to sparks developed at the Inculator, as a result of which, the son of plaintiffs 1 and 2 died on the spot and their daughter was sustained burn injuries, as they were playing on that place at that time. It is further contended that the incident was informed to the Department and that the staff immediately inspected the spot and rectified the same. It is further contended that as there was no negligence on their part, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.
During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. 5 On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 was examined, however, no documentary evidence was produced.
The trial Court, after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and the respective contentions of the learned Counsel on either side, held that there was negligence on the part of the defendants in maintaining the electric service lines. It was also held that the defence of the defendants that there was heavy gale and rain on the date of incident was not proved. Further, the trial Court, after considering the age of the minor child (deceased) and also the injuries sustained by plaintiff No.3, directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to plaintiff No.2 towards compensation for the death of the deceased and also Rs.50,000/- for the injuries caused to plaintiff No.3 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of incident till the date of realisation. It was also observed by the trial Court that the defendants are liable to pay Court Fee of Rs.4,426/- as the suit was filed as in forma pauperis.
6
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred by the Electricity Board Officials (defendants). It was mainly contended that there was no negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants in maintaining the electric lines and that the incident was occurred purely on accidental manner and as such the trial Court erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged five years on the date of incident, even though he was not an earning member, and also Rs.50,000/- to plaintiff No.3 for the injuries sustained by her. It was further contended that instead of awarding compensation from the date of suit, the trial Court erred in awarding the same from the date of incident. Further, the rate of interest at 12% per annum granted by the trial Court is highly excessive. Therefore, the appellants/defendants requested the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
7
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side. Perused the entire material available on record.
The trial Court relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M.P.Electricity Board V. Shail Kumar and others,1 wherein it was held that Electricity Board is liable to pay compensation irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board when a person died due to contact with live electric wire lying on the road. The trial Court has also observed that the liability cast upon the department is strict liability and even if there was no negligence on the part of the department, they are liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased and also for the injuries sustained by plaintiff No.3. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants that there was no negligence on the part of the department officials in causing the incident, is not tenable. Further, the plaintiffs claimed Rs.1,00,000/- 1
2002 (3) ALT 34 8 only as compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged about five years and hence, the trial Court granted the said amount. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants is that the deceased was not an earning member. Admittedly, the parents of the deceased underwent family planning operation and as such there was no possibility of them getting a child. Further, they had sustained mental agony due to the death of their only son at tender age and if at all he was alive, he might have supported their parents in all aspects. Taking into consideration of the said facts, the trial Court rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. So also, the trial Court, allowed I.A.No.35 of 2000 filed by the plaintiffs and sent plaintiff No.3 to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, for medical examination and that the members of Medical Board examined plaintiff No.3 and issued Physical Disability Certificate, in which it was stated that there were two scars 9 on the body of plaintiff No.3, one is over the right side of the back and another is over the thigh and lower limb and thus there is no physical disability to plaintiff No.3. However, due to the scars, the marriage prospects of plaintiff No.3 are very low and she has to suffer a lot throughout her life. Thus, the trial Court rightly granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by plaintiff No.3. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the findings of the trial Court, which are cogent and clinching, do not warrant any interference by this Court.
In so far as the rate of interest granted by the trial Court is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that no reasons were assigned by the trial Court for granting interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount and as such he requested the Court to reduce the interest from 12% per 10 annum to 6% per annum. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs filed the suit as in forma pauperis and though the compensation amount was deposited before the trial Court, they were not permitted to withdraw the same and as such the interest granted by the trial Court is reasonable and this Court need not be interfered with the said finding. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel on either side, I am of the view that it is just and reasonable to reduce the interest from 12% per annum to 9% per annum.
Accordingly, the rate of interest granted by the trial Court on the compensation amount is modified from 12% per annum to 9% per annum from the date of incident till the date of realization. Except to the extent of reduction in 11 rate of interest, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is confirmed in other aspects.
In the result, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA 13.12.2022 Gsn