THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT No.1080 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T (Additional District Judge) (Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act cases), Nalgonda in O.S.No.14 of 2011, the present Appeal Suit is filed.
2. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Nalgonda, as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submits that the trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.12,49,038/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand and Thirty Eight Rupees only) towards damages to the respondents/plaintiffs payable by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 with interest @ 6% per annum. The trial Court passed the judgment and decree contrary to law, against the evidence on record and the learned trial Judge failed to take into consideration that there is no negligence on the part of the appellants. The trial Court erroneously fixed the liability of the appellants and failed to observe that the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.5 herein. The deceased was only a Junior Line 2 SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017 Man working under a contract and the trial Court should fixed the liability on the Contractor. The trial Court failed to give credit of Rs.3,75,000/- which was paid by the appellants' company to M/s Yashodha Multi Specialty Hospital. They also contended that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act do not apply to the compensation fixed for the death of a person due to electrocution and the trial Court granted huge compensation of Rs.12,49,038/- without any evidence being produced by the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of the income of the deceased employee. As such, the same is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 further submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the appellants and the trial Court wrongly fixed the liability on the appellants and failed to observe that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and the compensation awarded is highly exorbitant. As such, he prayed the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that there are no infirmities in the judgment passed by the trial Court. The trial Court rightly awarded the damages, in fact, which are not sufficient to meet the loss caused to the respondents. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
3
SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as mentioned in the trial Court.
7. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein filed the suit vide O.S.No.14 of 2011 claiming damages of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of Burri Veera Mallaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are children of the deceased. The deceased used to work as a Line Man in A.P.C.P.D.C.L. On 14.07.2010 while the deceased took work in Electricity Office, Munagala for repair of lift line of Ghanapavaram Village and at about 4:30 P.M., when he was attending the repair on electric pole, the electricity worker of Munagala Sub-Station connected the electricity supply to Ghanapavaram village lift line negligently, as such, the deceased met with electric shock and sustained burnt injuries to his left thigh and right hand. Immediately, he was shifted to Yashodha Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, for treatment and he succumbed to the burnt injuries on 18.07.2010. Plaintiff No.1 spent Rs.10,00,000/- for treatment. On the complaint of Plaintiff No.1,wife of the deceased, the Police, Munagala Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2010 under Section 304-A I.P.C. The plaintiffs asserted that the deceased was aged about 50 years, working as Assistant Lineman in defendants' Corporation 4 SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017 and he was drawing Rs.13,365/- per month. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are school going children. Plaintiff No.1 lost consortium and her children lost the love and affection of their father and their marriages have to be performed. Therefore, she filed the suit claiming damages to a tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.
8. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement denying the allegations while admitting that the deceased was working as Assistant Line Man in defendants' Department. The deceased was working in the capacity of Junior Line Man but not the Assistant Lineman and admitted that the deceased met with electrocution while repairing on the pole and the incident of electrocution of the deceased was an unforeseen and untoward incident and immediately he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. The entire amounts incurred towards treatment of the deceased were borne by defendant Nos.1 and 2 only by paying an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- directly to the hospital and the allegation of spending Rs.10,00,000/- by plaintiff No.1 is incorrect.
9. Defendant No.3 filed written statement admitting that the deceased died due to electrocution and the entire expenditure was borne by the Electricity Department and the Department has assured to give suitable job to the wife of the deceased and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
5
SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017
10. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-9 marked. Basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court awarded damages as stated supra.
11. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the trial Court needs any interference?
12. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no negligence on the part of the Corporation and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself.
13. To prove their case, Plaintiff No.1 herself examined as P.W.1 and documents under Exs.A-1 to A-3 are marked. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.106 of 2010 of Munagala Police Station. It is evident that due to electrocution only the deceased died. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the Inquest Report shows that the deceased died due to electric shock. Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of the Post Mortem Examination Report. According to the Post Mortem Examination Report, the cause of death is septic shock as a result of burns. Ex.A-4 is the charge sheet, which is filed after due investigation, stating that there is negligence on the part of defendant No.3 and documents filed under Exs.A-1 to A-4 proves the negligence on the part of the 6 SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017 Corporation. Therefore, there are no merits in the contention of the appellants that the deceased died due to his negligence and the deceased received electric shock due to his own negligence. Further, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the damages awarded by the trial Court are exorbitant and Motor Vehicles Act accident is not applicable to this case.
14. The defendants before the trial Court have examined D.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-9. Their evidence is no way helpful to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself.
15. With regard to the damages, the trial Court basing on Ex.A-5-Salary Certificate fixed the gross salary of the deceased as Rs.13,365/- as on the date of incident and there are four dependents on the earnings of the deceased. As such 1/4th of the salary was deducted for his personal and living expenses and remaining salary Rs.10,024/- was multiplied with the multiplier '8' as the deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of death, as per the judgment of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1. Hence, the loss of dependency was assessed as Rs.9,62,304/- and an amount of Rs.2,76,734/- also awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- is awarded as 1 2009 ACJ 1298 7 SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017 consortium and Rs.5,000/- also awarded towards loss of estate and total amount comes to Rs.12,49,038 /-.
16. Further, the trial Court also noticed that an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- was paid by the Corporation towards medical treatment. Whereas, as per Ex.B-8, the Corporation paid an amount of Rs.98,266/- out of Rs.3,75,000/-, as such the remaining amount of Rs.2,76,734/- is awarded under the head of medical expenses.
17. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. There are no merits in the appeal and the Appeal Suit is accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T (Additional District Judge) (Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act cases), Nalgonda in O.S.No.14 of 2011. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________ K.SUJANA, J DATE: 07.11.2023 SAI 8 SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017 249 HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.1080 of 2017 Date: 07.11.2023 SAI