THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.919 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009 in O.S.No.36 of 2007, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad District.
2. It is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the respondents/plaintiffs are the parents and younger brother of Ambati Saikumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and he was working as a contract labour for harvesting the sugarcane and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. On 23.09.2006 at about 1.00 p.m. the deceased while proceeding towards the bullock cart for loading the green grass in a cart, he met with an accident due to electrocution and died on the spot. Later, a case was registered in Crime No.150 of 2006 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Autopsy was conducted over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificate, wherein it discloses that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to electric injuries. Thereupon, the respondents/plaintiffs got issued legal notice to the appellants/defendants claiming compensation but they did not choose to pay the compensation. 2 Aggrieved over the same, the respondents/plaintiffs filed suit vide O.S.No.36 of 2007 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the entire amount.
3. In a written statement filed by the appellants/defendants, they denied the negligence on their part and further stated that the deceased while crossing SS-59 transformer plinth, he was carrying wet grass bundle on his head which touched 11KV bushings of 25 KVA DTR thereby, the deceased got electric shock and died on the spot.
4. The parties herein will be referred as plaintiffs and defendants as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
5. To support their case, the plaintiffs got examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A9 and defendants got examined DW.1 and no exhibits were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.150 of 2006. Exs.A2 to A4 are the copies of inquest panchanama, postmortem examination report and death certificate. Ex.A5 is the dependent certificate issued by the MRO. Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice. Ex.A7 is postal receipt. Ex.A8 is photo and Ex.A9 is negative. 3
6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants contended that the father of the deceased clearly admitted that his son was carrying wet grass bundle and came in contact with 11 K.V.Bushings of 25 K.V.A. DTR. As such, there is no negligence on the part of the defendants. It was also elicited from DW.1 that there was rain prior to the incident and there was a foot- way beside the transformer, which is dangerous as there is no fencing around it. He further stated that electricity poles are standing in the agricultural fields and the defendants never visited the transformer at any point of time. It is further stated that the lands situated around the transformer was converted into the agricultural fields by the concerned owners and they did not take any steps against the owners for converting the lands as agricultural fields and therefore, the defendants are not liable to pay the compensation.
7. After considering the evidence available on record, the trial Court has held that there was negligence on the part of the defendants as they failed to take precautions in maintaining the transformer and also observed that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the defendants in maintaining the transformer and live wires. 4
8. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and his parents and younger brother were shown as dependants on him. Though it is stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, no document is filed to prove the same. As such, the trial Court has taken the amount of Rs.15,000/- as notional income and granted compensation of Rs.1,71,424/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and the plaintiffs are entitled for the decreetal amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization of entire decreetal amount.
9. Learned counsel for the defendants contended that the interest granted by the trial Court at the rate of 18% per annum is excessive and exorbitant.
10. As the suit is filed for compensation, this Court finds it reasonable to modify the rate of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.
11. The defendants are directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one (01) month from the date of this judgment 5 and on such deposit made by the defendants, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 viz., parents of the deceased are permitted to withdraw the entire amount in equal apportionment. Plaintiff No.3 is a minor son of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and he is only the dependent of his parents and not on the deceased. As such, he is not entitled for any compensation and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff No.3 is dismissed.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Appeal Suit is allowed-in-part, modifying the rate of interest from 18% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 06.11.2023 PNS