THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.888 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
This appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2009 in O.S.No.2 of 2007, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad District.
2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2 of 2007. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) Plaintiff No.1 is the father, plaintiff No.2 is the wife and plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are the younger brothers of Dayyala Rajalingam (hereinafter after referred to as 'the deceased'), who was aged about 18 years at time of accident and died due to electrocution.
(ii) On 04.01.2005 at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased was proceeding towards the agricultural fields in the Shivar of Thanakalan Village, Yedpally Mandal, to get the contract work for harvesting the sugar cane and while the deceased was passing through the field of one Lakkampally Satyanarayana in Survey No.1195, the land-lord/pattedar asked him to observe 2 the supply of water and to inform him. At that time, the deceased met with electrocution from the water stagnated around the earth wire pipe connected to the transformer No.SS- 5 and due to which, the deceased fell down on the earth wire and died on the spot. Later, a case was registered in the Crime No.6 of 2005. Further, the post-mortem examination was conducted over the dead body of the deceased in which it was opined that the cause of death was only due to the electrocution. Thereupon, the plaintiffs got issued legal notice to the defendants claiming compensation but they did not choose to pay the same. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs filed suit vide O.S.No.2 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.
4. In a written statement filed by the defendants, they denied the negligence on their part and further stated that the accident has occurred only due to the action of the deceased in proceeding towards the transformer and putting the fuse to the wire without informing the concerned department officials or lineman and, therefore, the trial Court grossly erred in awarding the compensation.
3
5. To support their case, the plaintiffs got examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 and the defendants got examined DW.1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2. Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR dated 04.01.2005. Ex.A2 is C.C of inquest panchanama, dated 04.01.2005. Ex.A3 is copy of legal notice, dated 25.09.2006. Ex.A4 is Under Certificate of posting dated 25.09.2006. Ex.A5 is the post-mortem examination report. Ex.B1 is the final report issued by Station House Officer, Yedpally Police Station and Ex.B2 is Departmental Enquiry Report, dated 05.01.2005.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants contended that the SS-5 transformer is located in the vacant place and there are 20 to 25 motors running under the said transformer and without having any knowledge or experience, the deceased proceeded towards the transformer at the instance of one L.Satyanarayana and operated the fuse in the transformer, due to which he came in contact with the water stagnated around the earth wire and died on the spot due to electrocution. As such, there is no negligence on the part of the defendants 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 4 defendants as they failed to take precautions in maintaining the live wires and transformers and also observed that there is no fencing erected around the transformer, which clearly shows that the defendants are negligent in taking all the possible precautions. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants filed the present appeal. Admittedly, the deceased died due to electrocution and hence, the defendants cannot be exempted from their liability.
8. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 18 years at the time of accident and his father, wife and younger brothers 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.2,00,000/- 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. 5
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 and on such deposit made by the defendants, plaintiff No.1 - father of the deceased is permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- and plaintiff No.2 - wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the balance amount viz., Rs.1,50,000/-. Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are younger brothers of the deceased and they are not the dependents on the deceased, as such they are not entitled for any compensation and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 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.
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.888 of 2010 DATE: 08.11.2023 PNS