THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
A.S.No.838 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2007 in O.S.No.83 of 2002, on the file of the learned XVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad whereby the suit seeking compensation for the death of one Mohd.Khaled Hussain Siddiqui, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 & 3, was partly decreed awarding compensation of Rs.3,55,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation.
2. The appellants herein are the defendant No. 1, the Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (Presently, Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited), represented by its Chairman, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and defendant No. 2, the Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (Presently, Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited), represented by its Assistant Engineer, Division No. 12, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
2
MGP,J AS_838_2008
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Mohd. Khaled Hussain Siddiqui died on 03.10.1998 at about 07:00 p.m., due to electrocution, at Fatehshah Nagar. According to the plaintiffs, on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding from Hafezbaba nagar, Jamal colony towards Fatehshah Nagar and when he reached Bandh Naaka, he was electricuted due to the snapping of live electrical III phase. Thus, it is the claim of the plaintiffs that only due to negligence of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, snapping of live electrical III phase wire in view of the negligence of the staff of the defendants, the deceased came in contact with the wire and died on the spot. Had the employees of defendant Nos.1 and 2 taken due care and caution while maintaining the electricity lines, the deceased would not have died due to electrocution. According to the plaintiffs, the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing embroidery work and used to contribute his entire earnings for the welfare of the family. Due to his sudden death, the plaintiffs are put to hardship and mental agony, for which, they claimed compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- from defendant Nos.1 and 2.
4. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaintiffs. It is their case that the incident had happened only due to the sudden heavy gale and wind in and around Fatesha Nagar, wherein live III phase electrical wire was 3 MGP,J AS_838_2008 snapped and fallen beside. As a result, the deceased came in contact with the said fallen wire and died on spot due to electric shock. It is further contended that the Defendants Corporation has been maintaining the electricity lines with all precautions in order to supply un-interrupted power to the public by way of inspecting periodically and as such, there is no negligence on the part of the defendants in maintaining the electric lines. It is lastly contended that the accident occurred only due to the act of the mis-major and is beyond control of Defendants-Corporation and prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Based on the above pleading, the trial Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount?
2. To what relief?
6. The plaintiffs, to support their case, have examined PWs.1 & 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. The defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. The Court below on appreciating the evidence on record has partly decreed the suit as indicated above.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the 4 MGP,J AS_838_2008 appellants/defendant Nos. 1 & 2 is that the accident occurred only mis-major i.e., an act of god and that there was a heavy gale and wind, due to which, the electric wires snapped. As such, there is no negligence on the part of defendant Nos.1 & 2, Electricity Department. However, the trial Court has erred in fastening liability without there being any independent evidence. Therefore, the appellant herein is not liable to pay the compensation.
8. The plaintiffs in support of their pleadings, marked Exs.A.2, inquest report, A.3, Post Mortem Examination report. The plaintiffs have also examined an independent witness as P.W.2, who deposed that the deceased died due to the electric shock after getting into contact with the live electric wire which was snapped and fell down. Though P.Ws.1 & 2 were cross-examined at length in this regard, no contra evidence was elicited Though the defendants have not disputed the death of deceased due to electrocution, defendants have not let any evidence to prove their case. Considering the evidence brought on record, the trial Court held that both the defendants are equally responsible for the death of the deceased and therefore, both of them liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Judge.
9. As regards the quantum of compensation, P.W.1, the wife of deceased, has deposed that the deceased used to do embroidery 5 MGP,J AS_838_2008 work and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month. However, as the incident occurred during the year 1998, the trial Court has reasonably taken the income of the deceased to Rs.2,400/- per month and the same is not disturbed herewith. Since the deceased was 35 years old at the time of the death, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, 40% towards future prospects can duly be added to the established income of the deceased. Thus, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,360/- (Rs.2,400/- + Rs.960/-). Since the dependents are three in number, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net monthly contribution to the family comes to Rs.2,240/- and as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, the appropriate multiplier is '16' as the deceased was 35 years old at the time of the accident. Thus, applying the multiplier '16', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,30,080/- (Rs.2,240 x 12 x 16). That apart, the other amounts awarded by the trial Court i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.28,000/- towards loss of love and affection, estate, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, are reasonable and needs no interference 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 6 MGP,J AS_838_2008 by this Court. Thus, in all, the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.4,78,080/-
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in view of the foregoing observations of this Court, the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court is enhanced from Rs.3,55,200/- to Rs.4,78,080/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned between the plaintiffs in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed by the trial Court. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 24.04.2023 gms 90 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI APPEAL SUIT No.838 of 2008 DATE: 24.04.2023 gms