Telangana High Court
The Chairman And Managing Director, vs Kemoju Brahma Chary, on 14 August, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
APPEAL SUIT No.282 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal filed by the Central Power Distribution Company (for short, the company) against the judgment dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Senior civil Judge, Miryalguda, (for short, the trial Court) in O.S.No.87 of 2003. For the sake of convenience of reference, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court partly-decreed the suit by granting a compensation of Rs.3,46,400/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest thereon at 9% per annum on the said compensation from the date of the suit till the date of realization, on account of the death of one Satyanarayana (for short, the deceased) in an electrocution incident that occurred on 22.08.1999; and directed the defendants 2 to 5 to pay the compensation within three months from the date of the judgment, while dismissing the suit against defendant No.1-District Collector.
2. Heard Sri R. Vinod Reddy for the appellants / defendants and Sri Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs.
3. The plaintiffs are residents of Kondrapole village. On 22.08.1999 due to high gale, their house was damaged. In the process of reconstruction, the deceased Satyanarayana who was attending to the work on newly constructed wall, suffered electric shock from high tension electric wires 2 going across the plaintiffs house and died instantaneously. The Police, Wadapally registered a case in Crime No.45/1999 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and conducted inquest over the dead body. The postmortem examination conducted by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Miryalguda Hospital, opined that the death was due to electric shock. The deceased was aged about 22 years by the date of incident. He was a skilled carpenter and used to earn about Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month and was looking after his parents (plaintiffs). The plaintiffs approached the trial Court by filing O.S.No.87 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various Heads. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, granted a compensation of Rs.3,46,400/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization against defendants 2 to 5. The judgment of the trial Court is under challenge in this appeal by the Central Power Distribution Company.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants-company would contend that there was no negligence on the part of appellants in maintaining the electrical wires as per the written statement and evidence of DWs.2 to 4 and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It is also contended that the provisions of Section 82 of the Limitation Act apply to the suit and therefore the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of two years from the date of incident. It is also 3 contended that the trial Court erred in entertaining the suit by observing that Section 82 of the Limitation Act does not apply and, on the contrary, the provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act apply to the suit. It is also contended that the trial Court erroneously held that the judgment in A.P. Electricity Board, Hyderabad, v. Y. Venukumar 1 applies to the case and passed the impugned judgment. It is also contended that the electric wires are at a height of above 20 feet from the ground level and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, and further there is no evidence to show that the deceased was aged 22 years and was earning Rs.80/- per day for the purpose of awarding compensation. It is also contended that the judgments relied on with regard to the doctrine of strict liability have no application to the facts of the case and the trial Court on erroneous appreciation of the facts and law passed the impugned judgment and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs would primarily contend that the evidence on record would show that the electrical wires were hanging dangerously low which lead to the cause of accident. It is also contended that with regard to the aspect of limitation under Section 82 of the Limitation Act, the trial Court has rightly observed that Section 82 does not apply, and with regard to the negligence, the trial Court held the defendants failed in properly maintaining the electrical wires which 1 2006 (3) ALD 710 4 was the reason for electric shock causing the death of deceased. It is therefore contended that the trial Court has appreciated the facts and law in right perspective and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. Considering the respective submissions, and perusing the material on record, it is pertinent to note that the trial Court has framed issues for determination, namely, (i) limitation, (ii) cause of action, and (iii) quantum of compensation.
7. With regard to the issue of limitation, the trial Court referred to two decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs; which are (i) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy 2 which is a case relating to the request of plaintiff and father therein to provide security in the jail apprehending danger to their life in the hands of sub-inspector on his alleged conspiracy with assailants in hurling bombs at the plaintiff and father and in the bomb attack the father of plaintiff died in the jail. The plaintiff's mother filed suit claiming Rs.10,00,000/- in compensation. The State Government argued that the act relates to omission of duty by the sub-inspector and therefore Article 72 of the Limitation Act applies which is one year from the date of incident, and the trial Court therein dismissed the suit and the High Court on appeal set aside the trial Court's judgment holding that Article 113 of the Limitation Act applies which gives three 2 AIR 2000 SC 2083 5 year time period to file the suit. Similar case law regarding applicability of Article 113 of Limitation Act was discussed in A.P. State Electricity Board, Hyderabad v. Y.Venu Kumar 3, which is a case where one VeeraRaghava died when he went to fetch green grass and in the process came into contact with live wires lying in the crop; and in this case also when the matter went uptoHon'ble Supreme Court, the apex Court held that in such cases of death due to electric shock, Article 113 of Limitation Act applies and not Article 72 of the Limitation Act.
8. With regard to the cause of action and entitlement to compensation, it is the evidence of PW.1 (mother of the deceased) that the deceased went onto the roof for supervising the wall newly constructed and the high tension wires of the company are lying so low that the deceased sustained electric shock and suffered instantaneous death. PWs.2 and 3 who are villagers also deposed that they made oral requests to the company to secure the wires properly to avert any untoward incident but no action was taken by the company. PW.3 who is the neighbor of PW.1 deposed that electric lines are going across over their houses to the railway quarters and that due to improper maintenance the wires have been hanging loose towards the ground and due to that reason the deceased sustained shock. PW3 further deposed that if vertical clearance had been maintained and proper insulation like any plastic pipe around the wires are inserted, the 3 2006 (3) ALD 710 6 accident would not have occurred. During cross examination, PW3 deposed that they made oral representations but not made any written complaint for rectifying the electric lines. PW3 denied the suggestion that the deceased Satyanarayana was curing the parapet wall. With respect to the evidence on defendants side, DW3 and DW4 are important witnesses. DW3 is the Line Inspector, and DW4 is the lineman of the company and he attends to the section covering Kondrapole village. Both DW3 and DW4 deposed that theplaintiffs encroached into government land and made construction and at the time of incident they were extending their construction at a height of 14 feet with tin sheets and that it is unauthorized construction violating Grampanchayat rules without any permission that the total height of theline from ground level is 24 feet, that their enquiry reveals that the deceased stood upon the 14 feet wall and tried curing the newly constructed wall and in that process he suffered electric shock and died. DW3 stated that generally unless a person goes to close to one feet from the 11 KV electric wire, he cannot sustain electric shock. DW4 deposed that long ago electric line was laid, and in the cross examination DW4 admitted that the plaintiffs family was living there from the time of their forefathers. None of the defendants side witnesses produced any record to show that the electric wires were properly being maintained. The trial Court therefore held that the company is tortuously liable as they were negligent in maintaining the electric lines properly. 7
9. Further, the defendants contended that there is no cause of action against the defendants as the deceased died of his own negligence by coming in contact with electric wires. In this context, the trial Court referred to the case in Asa Ram v. Metro Corporation, Delhi 4 and also the case in P. Ramulu v. The S.E Electrical Operation, APSEB, Mahaboobnagar 5 which is a similar case wherein a lady was grazing her buffaloes and a live wire snapped and fell on the ground and the buffaloes came into contact with the wire and when the buffaloes cried in pain the lady in the effort to save them died along with the buffaloes due to the electric shock. The Hon'ble Supreme Court applied the principle of "strict liability" and awarded compensation to the plaintiffs therein. The trial Court considering the precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the company is responsible for the accident under strict liability.
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, PW1 deposed that the deceased used to earn about Rs.4000 to Rs.5000 per month. However, there is no documentary evidence placed on record. The trial Court has taken Rs.80/- per day as the income of the deceased, and deducted 1/3 towards his personal expenditure, thereby Rs.1600/- as monthly income of the deceased. And as the deceased crossed 23 years of age by the date of the demise, the trial Court took multiplier 17 as per Second Schedule 4 AIR 1995 Delhi 164 5 2008 (3) Law Summary 271 (DB) 8 under Motor Vehicles Act, and computed the total compensation to be Rs.3,46,400/- including Rs.10,000/- each for pain and suffering, and for funeral expenses, to be paid by defendants 2 to 5 with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum, within three months.
11. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective and therefore impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka 14th August, 2024 ksm