THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.191 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 07.03.2007 in O.S.No.12 of 2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Nizamabad.
2. The suit vide O.S.No.12 of 2004 was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Banovath Hanmandloo, who died due to electrocution, claiming damages of Rs.11,05,000/- from the appellants/defendants. The trial Court got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 on behalf of the plaintiffs and also examined D.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides and evidence on record, partly decreed the suit and granted compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- towards damages to the respondents/plaintiffs with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of suit till realization and the suit against respondent No.5/defendant No.5 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, defendants No.1 to 4 therein i.e, Electricity department preferred the present appeal.
2
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants mainly contended that it is for the respondents/plaintiffs to prove that accident was occurred only due to negligence of the appellants herein. As they installed guy insulator to the supporting wire, there is no negligence on their part. As per the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants, the supporting wire of the poll No.37/A/6 was with guy insulator and the question of passing electricity through the said support wire does not arise and the entire line system was properly maintained without causing any inconvenience. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court.
4. The parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
5. Plaintiffs in the suit stated that the deceased Banovath Hanmandloo was cultivating the land of Talari Ramulu and others on lease. On 11.10.2001 at about 2 P.M., while he was going to the said leased lands, came in contact with the support wire of the electric pole bearing No.37/A/6 and received electric shock and died on the spot and the police registered a case in 3 Cr.No.67 of 2001 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. As per the Postmortem examination report, the cause of death was due to electric shock. As on the date of incident, the deceased was aged about 35 years and he was earning Rs.50,000/- per annum from agriculture and Rs.3,000/- per month on milk business. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiff No.2 is the aged mother and plaintiffs No.3 & 4 are the minor children of the deceased. The electric pole supporting wire belonging to the defendants No.1 to 4 left without maintenance, supervision and checking to prevent unfortunate events like death of the deceased and the staff of defendants No.1 to 4 were negligent in discharging their duties, as such they are liable to pay compensation. Plaintiffs got issued legal notice on 28.11.2001 and the same was received by defendant No.1 on 29.11.2001, but they did not give any reply.
6. The defendant No.1 in his written statement stated that the entire line system of 100 KVA Transformer (SS-37) of Jakranpally distribution was proper, intact and the supporting wire of particular pole No.37/A/6 was with guy insulator erected by them and it was intact, as such the question of passing of electric supply from the said wire to the pole does not arise. He also stated that electrical pole No.37/A/6 was located 4 in the land of Mallu Ramulu and not in the land of Talari Ramulu and their department has no information about the said incident. The entire registration of the case, postmortem examination and other aspects were done behind the back of the departmental staff with an ill intention to extract money illegally. They came to know that while deceased was going through the said land, came in contact with illegal connection taken and connected in the land and died on the spot. By suppressing the said facts and by removing the material and other evidences from the spot, plaintiffs created false story and filed the suit and also stated that there was no negligence in discharging their duties.
7. D.W.1 in his Cross-examination stated that the concerned lineman and line inspector will look after the maintenance of the said pole and nearby poles and he will inspect whenever there is major problem. The lineman will submit records to their office regarding the maintenance of poles and yearly four times their lineman and inspectors shall inspect the lines as per their rules, but they are not maintaining any record regarding the said inspection and he has no record to show that guy insulator was fixed to the support wire. He also admitted that it is their duty to see that electrical installations are properly maintained and 5 to see that there shall not be any electricity leakage anywhere causing damage to the property and lives of the people and he denied their negligence regarding the incident.
8. D.W.2 in his evidence stated that on enquiry he came to know that while deceased was going through the land of one Mallaiah, he came in contact with the illegal connection taken and connected in the said land and died on the spot and no intimation was given to them on the date of incident or at any time subsequently and their staff never visited the alleged scene of incident. The trial Court considering the evidence on record held that there was negligence on the part of Electricity department and they did not take proper care for maintenance of electric pole in the village of Jakranpally Thanda and there was no contributory negligence on the part of deceased and accordingly granted compensation by taking his income as Rs.1,500/- per month and age as 35 years as mentioned in the postmortem examination report.
9. Admittedly, the deceased died due to electrocution as per the postmortem examination report. Plaintiffs stated that deceased was cultivating the lands of Talari Ramulu on lease. When he went into the said lands, he came in contact with the 6 electric wire and died on the spot. Whereas, defendants stated that the said pole was located in the land of Mallu Ramulu, but not in the land of Talari Ramulu and the support wire of the pole was with guy insulator, as such the question of passing electricity through the said pole does not arise. In fact, Mallu Ramulu took illegal connection from the said electric pole by placing hooks and the deceased came in contact with the said illegal connection and died on the spot, but the same was suppressed. Plaintiffs stated that in spite of receiving legal notice, defendants have not given any reply, but the defendants stated that plaintiffs never informed about the incident at any point of time. The appellant/defendants mainly contended that there is no negligence on their part, as such they are not liable to pay any compensation.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and others, 1 clearly held that Electricity Board is liable to pay compensation irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on their part when a person died due to contact with live electric wire and it reads as follows: 1
(2002) 2 SCC 162 7 "It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the suffer is that of the supplier of the electric energy."
Therefore, the argument of the appellants that there is no negligence on their part is not accepted. The trial Court discussed all the points at length and rightly arrived to the conclusion and granted reasonable compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realization and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court.
11. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 07.03.2007 in O.S.No.12 of 2004 passed by the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 03.11.2023 tri 8 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No.191 of 2009 DATE: 03.11.2023 TRI