THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.642 OF 2006
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.08.2005 in O.S.No.34 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.
2. The suit is filed by the wife and daughters of Vasudeva Raju, who died due to electrocution on 24.02.1999 at 6-40p.m within the premises of 33 KV sub-station during the course of employment.
3. Plaintiff stated that there was power breakdown due to failure of fuse at sub-station and Vasudeva Raju in order to restore the fuse climbed the pole and came in contact with live current power line and died on the spot due to electric shock. Police Nereducherla registered a case in Crime No.11 of 1999 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and issued First Investigation Report. Police also conducted Panchanama and dead body was sent to the Government hospital for post-mortem. Doctor opined that the death of deceased is due to electric shock. Wife of deceased was examined as PW1 and she examined PW2 on her behalf. She also filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A13. ADE of AP Transco was examined as DW1. Line inspector was examined as DW2 and 2 lineman was examined as DW3. Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 are marked on behalf of the defendants.
4. Plaintiff filed suit against the electricity department officials D1 to D4 and also the contractor D5. In spite of service of notice, D5 remained ex-parte. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Vasudeva Raju died due to electrocution and also there is no dispute that plaintiffs are LR's of the deceased Vasudeva Raju. The issue before the Trial Court was whether Vasudeva Raju was engaged by the contractor-D5 or not. It is also not in dispute that D5 is a contractor and he was allotted to manage and maintain 33/11 KV Sub-station at Gaddipally of Garidepally Mandal.
5. PW1 stated that her husband was aged 30 years and studied up to Intermediate and obtained Central training in the field of electrician especially winding of electrical motors and also Proprietor of electrical shop namely SRINIVASA ELECTRICAL SHOP at Gaddipally. D5 lured her husband to join the sub-station stating that he will get permanent employment in A.P.S.E.B and her husband agreed to work in the sub-station and he was paying Rs.1500/- per month. Apart from that her husband was also attending motor repair work and getting Rs.3000/- per month.
3
6. As D5 failed to take safety measures, D1 to D5 are jointly responsible to pay the damages. She also examined PW2 and stated that Vasudeva Raju was working as a contract labour in substation at Gadepalli. There was power breakdown due to failure of the fuse of and Vasudeva Raju climbed the pole came in contact with power line and died on the spot. He also stated that deceased was getting a salary of Rs.1500/- from D5 and he died during the course of employment.
7. DW1 stated that he obtained the bio-data of D5 and also bio-data of B.Ramdas, R.Srinivas Goud and P.Srinivas Raju who worked in the office of D5 as the name of the deceased Vasudeva Raju was not mentioned in the said particulars, he was never employed by D5 and thus the question of payment of compensation to the plaintiffs does not arise and they are not liable to pay the compensation. He filed the applications of the above three persons and also Ex.B5 to Ex.B7 to show that defendant No.5 was allotted with the maintenance of KV Sub- station. DW1, DW2 and DW3 stated that Vasudeva Raju trespassed into the sub-station and died due to electrocution and he was not an employee of D5 Parvathalu.
8. Admittedly, DW1 has not filed any register maintained by the contractor D5 either regarding payment of wages or regarding attendance of the workers employed by him i.e. 4 attendance register or salary disbursement register maintained in regular course of time to ascertain whether Vasudeva Raju was engaged by him or not. The mere applications filed under Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are of no use to disprove the fact that Vasudeva Raju was engaged by the contractor, they have not examined the contractor for the reasons best known to them. When they are clearly disputing the employment of the deceased with the m, no doubt it is for the plaintiffs to prove that Vasudev Raju working with D5, plaintiff is the housewife of the deceased. She clearly stated that her husband was working with D5 and she also examined PW2 who supported her version.
9. Now the burden shifts upon the respondents to disprove her version, as they did not examine D5 or filed any relevant registers before the Court. They failed to discharge their burden, but simply contended that Vasudeva Raju is not their employee and he trespassed into the premises as such there is no negligence on their part and they are not liable to pay the damages. In the beneficial legislations, the Courts are always inclined to take a lenient view in favour of the claimants. The counsel of the appellants relied upon the citation reported 5 in Electricity Board Vs. Siripurapu Vijaya1 in which it was held as follows:
There is a scuttled distinction in regard to fixing the liabilities one for the purpose of service conditions and another for the purpose of fixing the liability for compensation that has to be awarded as a result of an accident as a fatal otherwise. The principles applicable in case of deciding the service conditions cannot be made applicable for fixing the liability in respect of compensation. The claimants in such cases have no concern nor any say in regard o service conditions as applicable between the employees or their appointing authorities. In regard to the fixation of liability for the compensation, the question which has to be seen is as to the immediate liability for payment.
10. The case before the Trial Court is not that, while he was passing through the road accidentally, he touched the electrical pole and died due to electrocution. In this case Vasudeva Raju went into the substation and made an effort to rectify the failure of the fuse at substation, climbed the pole for restoring the fuse came in contact with current power line and died on the spot. Until and unless he was not an employee engaged by D5, the question of Vasudeva 1 2004 (1) LLJ 973 6 Raju climbing on the pole for restoration of the power does not arise. But, D2 and D3 supported the version of D1 and all of them came up with different version and denied the employment of Vasudev Raju with the contractor only to avoid the liability and to pay the compensation without any relevant documents. Therefore, this Court finds that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts properly and dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff failed to prove that deceased was engaged by D5.
11. Plaintiffs claimed Rs.7,80,000/- towards loss of death. They stated that deceased was aged 30 years and he was paid Rs.1500/- per month by D5 and they also stated that he was doing motor repair work and getting an income of Rs.3,000/- per month and also having a shop, but not filed any evidence to prove the income of Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court feels that it is just and reasonable to calculate the income of deceased as Rs.1500/- per month x 12 x 18 i.e. Rs.3,24,000/-. 1/3rd is to be deducted towards family compensation i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- and the balance amount comes to Rs.2,16,000/-.
7
12. Petitioners are also entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and total compensation comes to Rs.2,86,000/-.
13. D5 was engaged by D1 to D4 as a contractor to maintain their substation. D1 to D5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,86,000/- with interest @7.5% from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization. Defendants are directed to pay the amount within 2 months from the date of this order. Petitioner No.1 was aged 3 years in the year 2001 and by this time, as the appeal is disposed of in the year 2022, she has attained the age of maturity and declared as major and discharged from the guardianship, 2nd plaintiff was mother of the 1st plaintiff, both of them are equally entitled for the said compensation amount and they are permitted to withdraw the entire amount on such deposited.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. Defendants are directed to deposit of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest @7.5% per month 8 from the date of application till the date of realization. They are directed to pay an amount within 2 months from the date of this order on such deposit, plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the same equally.
15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE SMT P.SREE SUDHA Date: 22.11.2022.
sus