Telangana High Court
The Superintending Engineer vs Jajyo Laxmi Bai on 8 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.401 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2021 passed by the IX Additional District Judge at Kamareddy, in A.S.No.2 of 2016, confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, in O.S.No.7 of 2010.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal are that the respondent /plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.7 of 2010 against the appellants/defendants for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was contended that the plaintiff's husband was a sick person and he cannot do any work; that she was maintaining her family by running a kirana shop and also doing tailoring work in her rented room, and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. It was further contended that high voltage electricity wire was passing in front of her kirana shop through electric pole; that on 21.11.2008 at about 11:45 a.m., when 2 LNA, J S.A.No.401 of 2022 the workers of the Electricity Department i.e., defendants were pulling the wire without taking any precautions and proper care and in a rash and negligent manner, the electrical wire suddenly fell on the plaintiff, as a result of which, the plaintiff sustained injury to her left eye.
4. The plaintiff was shifted to Dr. Sammi Reddy Eye Hospital, Kamareddy, where she was provided first aid and as the injury was grievous in nature, she was referred to L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, for treatment. The doctor, who treated the plaintiff at L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, opined that the electric wire intersected the cornea of her left eye, and therefore, she may not regain the vision to her left eye. It was also contended that the plaintiff underwent operation to her left eye at L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital and was treated as inpatient for five days.
5. It was further contended that the husband of the plaintiff approached the police, Kamareddy Police Station, and lodged a complaint, but, no action has been taken thereon. Hence, she lodged a private complaint before the Court below against the 3 LNA, J S.A.No.401 of 2022 defendant No.2 and two others and the same was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Kamareddy Police Station, who in turn, registered a case in Crime No.288 of 2009 under Section 338 I.P.C.
6. It was further contended that the plaintiff lost vision of her left eye due to sheer negligence on the part of the employees of the defendants; she had spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- for her treatment and medical expenses and also lost earnings. Therefore, she filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation/damages.
7. The defendant No.2 filed written statement and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos.1 and 3, whereas, the defendant No.4 was set ex parte. In the written statement, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the plaint averments, but they admitted that high voltage electric live wire was passing in front of the house of the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 stated that the plaintiff filed a private complaint with an inordinate delay and that on completion of investigation, the police closed the case. It was further stated that the compensation was barred by 4 LNA, J S.A.No.401 of 2022 limitation and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation.
8. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 and A.31 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
9. The trial Court, after considering the entire material available on record, decreed the suit granting compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree dated 02.12.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed an appeal vide A.S.No.2 of 2016. The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on record dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 02.12.2015. Hence, the present Second Appeal.
10. Heard Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel for TSNPDCL appearing for the appellants and Sri Sridhar Lonkala, the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 5
LNA, J S.A.No.401 of 2022
11. A perusal of the record discloses that both the Courts concurrently held that due to negligence of the workers of the electricity department, the plaintiff sustained injury to her left eye and therefore, she is entitled for compensation.
12. Though the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the trial Court decreed the suit without proper appreciation of the evidence and the first Appellate Court erred in confirming the same, the learned Standing Counsel failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualify as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.
13. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 6
LNA, J S.A.No.401 of 2022
14. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 1, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and fell for consideration.
15. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said concurrent findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are factual in nature and no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.
16. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: .01.2024
va
1
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546