THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT No.44 of 2017
JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18.01.2016 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet in O.S.No.10 of 2011 wherein the trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) towards damages as compensation for the death of Mr. Gondra Naresh due to the electrocution on account of the negligence on the part of the appellants. The appellants are jointly liable to pay the said amount to the respondents. Hence, the present Appeal Suit is filed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as mentioned in the trial Court.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law against the respondents on record. The trial Court erroneously fixed liability on the appellants, whereas the accident seems to be occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Learned counsel further contended that the deceased was studying intermediate. The trial 2 SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017 Court wrongly fixed the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- without any basis and without any documentary proof. The trial Court also failed to take into consideration the allegations in the written statement and the evidence produced by the appellants and without any valid reasons, came to a conclusion that the appellants are liable to pay the compensation.
5. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are the parents of deceased Gondra Naresh, who was studying Intermediate course at Thirumala Co-operative Junior College, Thirmalgiri. On 09.03.2011 the deceased Gondra Naresh appeared for the examination and went to agricultural fields to get the drinking water in a steel pot. While returning to the house with steel pot containing water, he came into contact with L.T electric wires connected to the said well and died on the spot due to electric shock. The lineman and Inspector of A.P.C.P.D.C.L have negligently set up those electric wires and failed to rectify the same to its normal position though it came down to the level of earth. The neighbours have made several complaints to the Department about the negligence of the Lineman and the Inspector. Plaintiff No.1 lodged a complaint to the Police subsequent to the death of Gondra Naresh, who registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2011 under Section 304-A of IPC.
3
SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017
6. The defendants filed written statement denying that averments of the plaint and their contentions are that the negligence is on the part of the deceased only and there is no negligence on the part of the Lineman and the Inspector. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any damages.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 to 4 are examined and Ex.A1 to A7 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendants.
8. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing on both sides, the trial Court awarded the damages of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the plaintiffs.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though there is no negligence on the part of the appellants, the trial Court wrongly put the burden on the appellants and the deceased himself is negligent and he has not taken proper care by walking with steel pot, as such they are not liable to pay the compensation and prayed the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the trial Court basing on the evidence on record rightly concluded that the appellants are 4 SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017 negligent in the said accident and there is no negligence on the part of the deceased Gondra Naresh as such no need to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
Now the points of the consideration are:
i. Whether the deceased Gondra Naresh died due to electrocution due to the negligence on the part of DWs.1 to 4 on 09.03.2011? ii. Whether the respondents are entitled for the damages for the death of their son from the appellants as prayed for. If so, what amount?
11. To prove the claim, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and they are seeking to claim the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of their son Gondra Naresh due to negligence on the part of the defendants.
12. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. Plaintiff No.1 is the father of the deceased and Plaintiff No.2 is the mother of the deceased. PW.1 in her evidence reiterated the contents of the plaint by deposing that Naresh is their son who died on 09.03.2011 at about 04:00 PM due to electrocution while getting water in a steel pot from the agricultural field after returning back to the house from his college and his death occurred on account of negligence on the part of the defendants who failed to attend an L.T. electric wire which was loosen and came down to the level of earth, though several complaints were made by the neighbouring land owners. She further stated that her 5 SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017 husband lodged complaint with Police regarding the incident which was registered in Crime No.17 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and a legal notice was issued to the defendants on 06.06.2011 demanding compensation for the death of Gondra Naresh and a reply was given with false and frivolous allegations and she further claimed that they are entitled for compensation.
13. PW.2 is the neighboring land owner and PW3 is the maternal aunt of the deceased Gondra Naresh. PW.2 stated that he is the owner of the agricultural land in Sy.No.226 of Uyyalawada Village and doing cultivation. On 09.03.2011 at about 06:00 PM while he was attending on agricultural works in the field, he observed that PW.1 was crying near the agricultural well of Sagarla Buchaiah and he went there and found that one Gondra Naresh, son of the plaintiff died and his body was found in turtle position with a steel vessel. PW.2 further stated that he found the burn injury on his left fore-arm due to electric shock on account of L.T. electric wire which is in existence in between his land and land of Sagarla Buchaiah, as it came down to the level of a man, one has to cross the electric wire underneath it. According to PW.2 several complaints were made to the Lineman and the Inspector of the Electricity Department by the villagers but they have not rectified the said line and even did not take any proper care or precautions 6 SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017 to raise the height of the electric line wire and the said incident occurred due to negligence of defendants which resulted into the death of Gondra Naresh.
14. PW.3 also stated on the same lines of PW1 that on the date of incident Gondra Naresh went to agricultural well to bring the water in a steel pot while he was returning back to the house, he was in contact with electric wire.
15. PW4 is the Panch witness for the scene of offence conducted by the Police in Crime No.17 of 2011 and his evidence is that police conducted panchnama in the presence of Sri Pasham Sriram Reddy and the place of incident is the paddy field of Sagarla Buccaiah. He further stated that he found one steel vessel with some water at the scene of offence and three electric wires were hanging on the western side at a distance of six feet from the vessel to a height of 6 feet 3 inches from earth and the scene of offence is located in between the fields of PW.2 and one Sagarla Buchaiah. He further stated that the death of Gondra Naresh is due to electrocution while he was getting water in the steel vessel and he also saw the body of the deceased and found a lacerated wound on the right hand and burn injury on the left fore-arm.
16. Against the aforesaid evidence, the defendants were examined. DW1 in his evidence stated that the deceased Gondra 7 SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017 Naresh committed suicide by touching electric wire and the plaintiffs taking advantage of the situation filed the suit with false allegations stating that there were electrical wires hanging to a height of 6 feet from the ground level at the scene of offence and no complaint was lodged by anybody at any point of time. He further stated that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants, since the electric wires are being checked by the staff regularly and the FIR ws lodged by the plaintiffs after due deliberations and consultations.
17. DW2 is the Lineman of Town-II Section, Suryapet and previously he worked as the Lineman of Arvapally Mandal from July 2010 to 2012 and he stated that on 09.03.2011 the deceased Gondra Naresh committed suicide and there was no incident of electrocution at Arvapally Village and no electric live wires were lowered nearer to ground level and the electric lines will be checked very oftenly and periodically. He further stated that the plaintiffs have filed the suit to make wrongful gain and there is no negligence on the part of defendants including himself.
18. Plaintiffs have filed Ex.A1 to A7 and Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of FIR in Crime No.17 of 2011 which was registered basing on the complaint given by plaintiff No.1 to the police, Arvapally for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC regarding the death of Gondra Naresh, wherein in the Ex.A1 it is mentioned that the 8 SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017 death of Naresh was on account of electrocution as he came into contact with live electrical wires which were loosen and came down nearer to the earth which he was carrying water vessel. The age of the deceased was shown as 18 years in Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the Certified Copy of Scene of Offence Panchnama which shows that the scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of PW.4 and one Pasham Sriram Reddy and the scene of offence panchnama has been clearly recorded in Ex.A2. Ex.A2 clearly describes that there was a steel vessel on the field bund and three L.T. live electric wires were found to be hanging on the western side at a distance of 6 feet and the height of each L.T wire is 6 feet 3 inches from the ground level.
19. Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of inquest report which was submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Arvapally, in which the age of the deceased was showing as 18 years and the cause of death is shown as electric shock and it is also mentioned that the deceased came into contact with the L.T wires which are at the low level, which resulted in his death. Ex.A4 is Post Mortem Examination report wherein the age of the deceased is mentioned as 18 years and the cause of death is due to electric shock. Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of Charge Sheet which is filed after final investigation stating that the Lineman and the Inspector of A.P.C.P.D.C.L are responsible for the said accident and case was 9 SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017 registered under Section 304-A of IPC. Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice sent to defendants by the plaintiffs calling upon them to pay the damages to a tune of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Gondra Naresh and Ex.A7 is the reply notice given by the defendants.
20. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 found to be consistent with the contents of Ex.A1 to A7. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 with Ex.A6 proves that the death of Gondra Naresh is on account of negligence on the part of the Lineman, who failed to attend the electric wires which came down and hanging just at a height of 6 feet 3 inches from the ground level. Though several complaints are given to the electricity department, they are not attending the said electric wires, which shows the negligence on the part of the defendants who failed to rectify the L.T electric wires which are hanging to low level. The evidence of the defendants is that the deceased committed suicide, but no evidence is adduced to prove the same and the scene of offence panchnama clearly shows that the electric wires are hanging at the height of 6 feet 3 inches from the ground level and it is not possible for committing suicide at that distance. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 shows that at the time of accident the deceased was carrying water with steel pot and it is common in the villages. He took water from agricultural well, as such the contention of the defendants that he committed suicide is nowhere 10 SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017 proved in the trial Court. The plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased who lost their own son which is an irreparable injury to their family and no compensation is paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The negligence attributed against the defendants has been established, which resulted to the death of young boy. The defendants refused to award compensation amount to the plaintiffs, which is miscarriage of justice, particularly when the incident took place on account of negligence on the part of the defendants. Taking into consideration the age and future prospects of the deceased, the trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and the same is liable to be paid by the defendants. Further the appellants also contended that compensation awarded by the trial Court is on high side. Respondents claimed 12 lakhs as compensation where as tribunal awarded only 5 lakhs. Respondents/Plaintiffs lost their young son who is aged about 18 years. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
21. The respondents have not filed any cross appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 along with Ex.A1 to A5 documents proved the negligence on the part of the Electricity Board.
22. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the Judgment of the trial Court. There are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is 11 SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017 accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________ K.SUJANA, J DATE:
SAI 12 SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017 HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.44 of 2017 Date:
SAI