THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.507 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 05.12.2008 in O.S.No.52 of 2006, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, wherein the suit filed for claiming compensation was decreed for a sum of Rs.5,75,000/-.
2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.52 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is wife, plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are parents and plaintiff Nos.2 and 5 are children of Shaik Wajid (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who was aged about 24 years and working as an Auto Driver and earning a sum of Rs.500/- per day. On 03.03.2006, the deceased went to Suddlam Village and while he was returning back, his auto could not restarted due to some trouble, thereby, he left his auto at Suddlam village and took the motor cycle of his friend. While crossing the village on a motor cycle of his friend, a live electric wire fell on him, as a result thereof, he sustained electrical burns and died on the 2 spot. Later, a case was registered in Crime No.34 of 2006. Further, the plaintiffs approached the Transco Authorities seeking for ex gratia and compensation at several instances, however, they protracted the matter on one pretext or the other. As such, the plaintiffs got issued legal notice on 11.04.2006 and in spite of receipt of legal notice, they did not choose to give any reply. Aggrieved over the same, the suit vide O.S.No.57 of 2006 has been filed claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- in lump sum.
4. Defendant No.3 was set ex-parte before the trial Court. In a written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2, they denied the averments in the plaint and contended that there is no negligence or carelessness on the part of the defendants and that the officers of the Department has been repairing the defects immediately. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any compensation and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Based on the above pleading, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:
"1.Whether the defendants are negligent in maintaining the electrical wiring at the scene of offence?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages?
3. To what relief?"
3
6. To support their case, the plaintiffs have got examined PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked and the defendants have got examined DW.1 and marked Ex.B1 - accident report. Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR. Ex.A2 is attested copy of inquest panchanama, dated 04.03.2006. Ex.A3 is copy of legal notice, dated 11.04.2006. Ex.A4 is the original death certificate of Shaik Wajeed, dated 06.03.2006. Ex.A5 is the certificate of postal acknowledgment. Ex.A6 is photograph of the deceased dead body along with negative and Ex.A7 is the driving license.
7. The Trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- with proportionate costs towards damages along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been preferred by the defendants.
8. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material placed on record.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants contended that the accident occurred due to heavy rain and lightening and that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants and the trial Court has grossly erred in holding that the defendants failed in maintaining the electrical wire at the place of incident. 4 The specific contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that on the date of incident, there was heavy rain, due to which thunderbolt and lightening fell on the electric wire which resulted into wire cut and fell on the deceased. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the defendants and it is vis major (act of God). Thus, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any compensation.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the deceased was travelling on the motor cycle of his friend and not along with his friend and as such, the question of examining his friend does not arise. Admittedly, the deceased died due to electrocution, even as per the inquest report and post-mortem report and as such, the defendants cannot be exempted from their liability. Though the post-mortem report is filed, it was not marked. Recording the conclusion, the defendants contended that the age of the deceased was wrongly shown as 29 years without any piece of paper. However, the trial Court held that the age of the deceased is 29 years as per the post-mortem report and considered the income of the deceased at Rs.125/- per day i.e., Rs.3,750/- per month and Rs.45,000/- per annum, which requires no interference by this Court. 5
11. After considering the evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly granted the compensation of Rs.5,75,000/- with proportionate costs towards damages and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
12. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2008 in O.S.No.52 of 2006, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan. Further, the defendants/appellants herein are directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, plaintiff Nos.3 and 4/respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, who are parents of the deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and plaintiff Nos.2 and 5/respondent Nos.2 and 5, who are children of the deceased, are entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein, who is the wife of the deceased, is entitled for the remaining amount along with interest accrued on it. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
6
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 08.11.2023 PNS 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No.507 of 2009 DATE: 08.11.2023 PNS