Unknown vs The Hon'Ble Sri Justice ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3694 AP

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

                  APPEAL SUIT No.388 of 2006

JUDGMENT:

This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') is directed against

the decree and judgment in O.S.No.17 of 2001 dated

15.04.2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

2. The plaintiffs, before the trial Court, are the appellants.

The respondents herein are the defendants.

3. The appellants instituted the suit against respondents

for granting compensation of Rs.3,64,392/- for the death of

one Bendi Ramana.

4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record

and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is

necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in

their respective pleadings.

5. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs in brief in the plaint

was as follows:

(i) 1st appellant is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are

mothers and appellant Nos.4 and 5 are daughter and son

of one Bendi Ramana (hereinafter called as "the

deceased").

(ii) On 23.10.1999 at 08.30 A.M., the deceased along

with N.Venkatarao and others went to Singuru village for

cutting gross to their cattle in sugarcane lands. While the

deceased was cutting the gross in the sugarcane garden,

the electric wires at the 2nd and 8th poles from the

electrical transformer of Singuru village, which is L.T.

wire, have fallen on the sugarcane crop at the height of

1½ meter from the ground. Unfortunately, the deceased

came into contact with the said electrical wire and died

on the spot.

(iii) The incident was reported to the 1st respondent,

and he visited the spot along with police. The deceased

died due to negligence of the electrical department staff.

Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the appellants,

who are totally depending on the earnings of the

deceased, suffered great loss and the respondents are

liable to pay compensation for their negligence. The

appellants got issued a notice dated 27.09.2000 to the

respondent's claiming compensation and the same was

received by them, but not responded. Hence, the suit.

6. The respondent No.3 denying all the allegations in the

plaint and contending in the written statement, which was

adopted by the other respondents by filing memo before the

trial Court, as follows:

(i) The L.T.3 phase four-line wire was laid from

Singuru distribution transformer SS.2 to certain

agricultural lands across the land of one Pydi Ramulu,

wherein a sugarcane crop was existing. The L.T. line was

intact during the pre-monsoon inspection conducted.

(ii) On 23.10.1999 at about 02.00 P.M., the Sarpanch

of Singuru Village came to the Section Office, Ponduru

and informed that the deceased found dead in the

sugarcane field by touching the L.T.line (2 wires). Then

the Section Officer went to the fields along with police

and found that out of three phases, two phase wires were

fallen on the ground, on which the dead body was lying.

Singuru Distribution is the unman distribution and no

report is received from anybody about snapping of the

conductor. The department is no way responsible for the

accident, because the deceased himself touched the

snapped conductor, which is clearly visible as it is

morning hours at 10.00 A.M.

(iii) The Section Officer several times tried to contact

the dependents of the deceased for giving nominal

compensation as per the Department Rules on

production of legal heir certificate, but nobody turned

up. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for

compensation. There is no negligence on the part of the

respondents and the amount claimed is very excessive.

Hence, the suit is liable for dismissal.

7. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following

issues for trial:

1. Whether Bendi Ramana died by electrocution due to the negligent maintenance of electrical lines?

2.If so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation in terms of money and at what rate? and

3.To what relief?"

8. At the trial, on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs, P.Ws.1

to 3 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.10 in support

of their contentions. On behalf of the respondents/defendants,

D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence

was adduced.

9. Basing on the material and evidence, trial Court came to

conclusion that the deceased died due to electrocution and

appellants proved the negligence on the part of the

respondent's department and awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/-

towards compensation. Thus, partly decreed the suit.

10. It is against the said decree and judgment, the

appellants/plaintiffs preferred this appeal in respect of the

quantum of compensation awarded to them.

11. Heard Smt.V.Sesha Kumari, learned counsel for

appellants/plaintiffs and Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel

for respondents/defendants.

12. Smt.V.Sesha Kumari, learned counsel for appellants

submits that since the incident occurred only due to

negligence of the respondents, the trial court ought to have

granted the compensation as prayed for; that the trial Court

failed to appreciate the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in granting

compensation; that the deceased earned sufficient money by

attending the works and thereby prays to allow the appeal by

granting compensation as prayed for.

13. Per contra, Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the

defendants submits that the trial Court on considering the facts

and circumstances, material on record rightly awarded the

compensation; that there are no grounds to interfere with the

judgment of the trial Court and that the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

14. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter

referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court.

15. It is against this backdrop, the following points, which

arise for determination need consideration now:

1. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court is just compensation or not? and

2. To what relief ?

16. POINT No.1:

The present appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs only in

respect of quantum of compensation awarded by the trial

Court and that there is no cross appeal filed by the department

against the findings of the trial court regarding the negligence

on the part of the department in causing death of the deceased.

Therefore, this Court is now confined to appreciate the

evidence and material regarding the quantum of compensation

entitled by the plaintiffs.

17. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are the dependents

on the earnings of the deceased. P.W.1 stated in her affidavit

that the deceased was doing agriculture and doing business of

casuarina and getting Rs.1,250/- per day by the date of death.

But, during the cross examination, she categorically admits

that there is no record to show that the deceased was paying

any professional tax; that the deceased is not literate and not

doing any job; that she is doing coolie works and that she has

not filed any record to show that she has own lands.

18. P.W.2, who is a third party, in his affidavit stated that

the deceased is having Ac.0.50 cents of land and doing

business of Casuarina and was getting an income of Rs.150/-

per day. However, during the cross examination, he also

admits that there is no record to show that the deceased is

having lands and doing business. P.W.3, who is also third

party to the proceedings, not stated anything about the

earnings of the deceased. There is no piece of material to say

that the deceased is having properties and doing business and

getting income as stated by P.W.1. Except sole and unworthy

testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the earnings of the deceased,

no other material is placed before the trial Court to prove the

actual income of the deceased. Even there is contradiction

between the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the day to day

earnings of the deceased.

19. In view of the above testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, this

Court is of the opinion that the deceased is not having any

landed properties, not doing any business, and getting income

by attending coolie works only.

20. Considering over all circumstances and material on

record, the trial Court rightly granted compensation of

Rs.80,000/- to the plaintiffs as they utterly fail to produce any

material to show the income sources of the deceased. Thereby,

the trial Court granted just compensation by considering the

entire evidence on record, facts and circumstances of the case.

Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

21. POINT No.2:

In view of the findings in point Nos.1, this Court do not

find any grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of

the trial Court and as such the appeal suit is liable to be

dismissed.

22. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed by confirming

the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.17 of 2001 dated

15.04.2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Srikakulam. There shall be no order as to costs.

23. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

24. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

Date: 25.07.2023 Krs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

APPEAL SUIT No.388 of 2006

DATE: 25.07.2023

Krs