Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gajjala Mariyamma vs Gajjala Seshaiah on 5 October, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
APPEAL SUIT NO.1047 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. The unsuccessful appellants/plaintiffs filed an Appeal under
Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'),
seeking enhancement of the damages awarded in the decree and
Judgment dated 18.11.2010 in O.S. No.01 of 2004 passed by the
learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short, 'the trial court').
Appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit, who filed the suit in O.S.No.01
of 2004 seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- towards damages for
the death of Gajjalla Chinna Naganna (hereinafter be referred to as 'the
deceased'), who died due to electrocution. The respondents are
defendants in the said suit.
2. It is expedient to refer to the parties as they are initially arrayed
in the suit to mitigate any potential confusion and have a more
transparent comprehension of the case.
3. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the
contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as
follows:
(a) The plaintiffs are indigent persons with no property except
the wearing apparel shown in the plaint schedule. They lack resources
to pay the Court fee. The deceased's parents are uncooperative and
have been included as defendants 1 and 2.
2 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
(b) The deceased worked as a private electrician and often
assisted G.Maddileti and G.Sunkaiah in electrical works under the
A.P.Transco Authorities and also earning daily wages as needed. The
defendants 3 and 4 assigned the work of line clearance for the
Kampamalla line from Koilakuntla A.P.Power House to S.Azeem, an
employee of A.P Transco Limited, Koilakunta (hereinafter be referred to
as 'the department').
(c) On 23.07.2000, Azeem engaged the deceased, G.Maddileti
and G.Sunkaiah of Revanur village to install a transformer on a daily
wage basis. Around 01:00 PM, Azeem, without returning to the work
site or verifying the progress of the work, carelessly and negligently
instructed the Power House in Koilakuntla over the phone to resume
electric power supply to the Kampamalla line. Following his
instructions, the power supply was restored, but the deceased, who was
still working on the transformer, was electrocuted and died instantly
due to shock and burns. The Koilakuntla Police filed a case, Cr.No.53 of
2000, against Azeem for this incident. The sudden death of the
deceased caused significant financial hardship to the plaintiffs, as he
used to earn a daily wage of at least Rs.200/- and supported his family
with this income. If defendants 3 to 5 had fulfilled their duties
responsibly, the deceased's tragic demise could have been prevented.
4. In the written statement, defendants 1 and 2 refuted the plaint
averments. They contended that they are the deceased's parents and
3 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
are also his legal representatives and are entitled to the compensation
which may be awarded to the deceased's legal heirs. Accordingly, if any
amount is awarded, they are entitled to a share in the awarded
compensation.
5. The 6th defendant adopted the written statement filed by
defendants 3 to 5, in which they denied the claims made in the plaint
and contended that the suit was improper due to the absence of
employee Azeem, who was supposedly the deceased's employer as per
the date of employment mentioned in the plaint; according to the
plaintiffs, the deceased was a worker employed by Azeem, and the
accident occurred during his employment; in such a case, the plaintiffs
should have filed a petition under the Workmen Compensation Act; the
deceased was never employed by them or their authorized
representative, Azeem; the alleged work of clearing the Kampamalla line
from Koilakuntla A.P Power House, as stated in the plaint, was entirely
false; the transformer at the site of the alleged accident had been
installed long before, and the described work did not exist; upon
receiving information about a non-departmental electrical accident on
23.07.2000, the 5th defendant filed a report with the Station House
officer in Koilakuntla; subsequently, the plaintiffs allegedly influenced
the police to file a charge sheet against Azeem, aiming to gain unjustly;
a criminal case, C.C.No.223 of 2000 in the court of Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Koilakuntla, resulted in acquittal.
4 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following
issues:
(1) Whether the deceased Gajjala Chinna Naganna died due to
electrocution on 23.07.2000 at Kampamalla village while he
was in the course of employment under defendants 3 to 5?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover an amount of
Rs.11,00,000/- towards compensation from the defendants 3
to 6?
(3) Whether the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to share in the
compensation, if any, to be awarded against defendants 3 to
6?
(4) Whether the defendants 3 to 6 are liable to pay any interest,
and if so, to what extent from which date?
(5) To what relief?
7. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 5 were
examined, and Exs.A1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the defendants,
D.Ws.1 and two were examined, and Ex.B.1 was marked.
8. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both
sides, the trial Court decreed the suit without costs, awarding
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiffs from defendants 3 to 5
only.
9. Sri J.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel representing the
appellants/plaintiffs put forth an argument that the deceased used to
attend the electrical works under the employment of the defendants
authorities for daily wages, whenever required; the trial Court failed to
appreciate the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who along with the deceased
attended the electrical work of fixing a 11 K.V.Transformers and the
5 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
deceased died due to electric shock; the deceased used to contribute all
of his earnings for the maintenance of the family; due to his untimely
death, the plaintiffs became destitute and lost their earning member;
the trial Court erred in relying on the acquittal of the criminal case
U/sec.304A of I.P.C, but the fact remains that the criminal case is no
way relevant to award the compensation.
10. Per contra, Sri Talaseela Ravi Teja, learned counsel, representing
Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned standing counsel for the APCPDCL
appearing for the respondents 3 to 6, would contend that the trial Court
correctly appreciated the case facts and came to a correct conclusion.
The reasons given by the trial Court do not require any interference.
11. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded
by the Trial Court and in light of the rival contentions and submissions
made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise
for determination:
1) Was there negligence on the Electricity Board's part
to make it liable to pay the compensation?
2) Was the quantum of compensation fixed by the
Tribunal just and reasonable, or does it require
modification?
3) Whether the Judgment passed by the trial Court
needs any interference?
POINT NO.1:
12. It is not disputed that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the wife and son, and
defendants 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Chinna Naganna.
6 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
The 1st plaintiff is examined as PW.1. PW.2 (G. Maddileti) and PW.3
(Gajjala Sunkaiah) belong to the plaintiff's village. P.W.s 2, 3 and the
deceased worked as private electricians. Their testimonies reveal that
since two days leading up to on 23.07.2000, PWs.2, 3 and deceased
were involved in the electrical work of installing a 11 K.V Transformer in
the fields of Kampamalla village, located half a kilometer away from
their village; they were employed on a daily wage basis by a helper
named Azeem; the work involved converting an existing Lower Tension
(L.T.) power line, which had been operational since 1970, to a Higher
Tension (H.T.) power line with an 11 K.V capacity. The conversion of the
power line and the installation of the new transformer had begun two
days prior to July 23, 2000. The new transformer was intended to be
used by local farmers to irrigate their lands using pump sets. On the
fateful day, the deceased, along with PWs.2 and 3, were engaged by the
Department through Azeem to install the new transformer and connect
the ex-fuse wire to it; they were actively engaged in this task; Azeem,
after assigning the work to them, went into Kampamalla village and did
not return to the work site to supervise their progress; around 12:30
PM, while the deceased was in the process of connecting the ex-fuse
wire to the new transformer, power was released from the Koilakuntla
sub-station; the deceased, still working, was electrocuted and lost his
life on the spot at approximately 12:45 PM.
7 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
13. In this regard, S.Azeem previously worked as a Junior Lineman
for Bheemunipadu-Kampamalla villages at the relevant time of
electrocution, as DW.1 testified as follows:
......It is false to state that on 23.07.2000, I engaged the deceased
for departmental work on daily wages.The deceased or anyone
was not employed by me or the department on daily wages at any
time. No transformer work was done at Kampamalla village on
23.07.2000 by me or anybody. Taking advantage of the L.C. taken
by me, a false case is foisted against me, and the said case has
ended in acquittal. The acquittal is confirmed even by the Hon'ble
High Court.
14. DW.2 C.Venkateswara Rao, who worked as Assistant Engineer,
Koilakuntla, at the relevant time of incident, also testified in the same
lines as deposed by DW.1. He further testified that Kampamalla line
was converted long back, and the transformer referred to by the
plaintiffs was erected long back; the work of conversion of L.T to H.T
done by the contractor; the conversion of line work will be done under
the contract system and the department officials do not do the said
works.
15. During cross-examination of DW.2, it was revealed that he had
informed the police about the electrocution death of Naganna. However,
he was unaware of any complaint made by Gajjala Seshaiah, as claimed
by DW.1, the Assistant Lineman. DW.1 mentioned that the police had
filed a charge sheet against him, which ultimately resulted in his
acquittal. Ex.A.5, a certified copy of the First Information Report (F.I.R.),
contained the details of Naganna's death due to electrocution. DW.1
8 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
also confirmed that an inquest was conducted on Naganna's body.
According to Ex.A.2 (a copy of the charge sheet), it was alleged that on
July 23, 2000, DW.1, along with the deceased Naganna, Gajjala
Sunkaiah (PW.3), and Gudipatipalli Maddileti (PW.2), attended to a
transformer in Kampamalla village. At around 12:30 PM, DW.1 provided
the ex-fuse wire to Naganna, while PWs.1 and 2 left the site to go into
Kampamalla village. After their departure, at 1:00 PM, DW.1, who was
in Kampamalla village, negligently requested the power office in
Koilakuntla to release power supply to the Kampamalla line. As a result
of this, when the power supply was restored, Naganna, who was still
working on the transformer, suffered an electric shock, fell from the
transformer, and tragically lost his life on the spot.
16. Nothing on record suggests that the investigating officer filed a
charge sheet against the DW.1 (Assistant Lineman) without conducting
a proper investigation. In the absence of any clinching material, it is
difficult to hold that the police officer fabricated a case against the
Assistant Lineman (DW.1). It is not DW.1's case that he challenged the
charge sheet in appropriate proceedings, if at all the findings of the
police are found to be incorrect, it is for the DW.1 or for the department
to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet
are false.
17. It is a common principle of law that in civil cases, what happened
and transpired, occurred and litigated before the criminal Court is not
9 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
relevant and germane. Time and again, the Honourable Apex Court
pointed out that civil proceedings are different from criminal
proceedings, as the adjudication in civil matters is based on the
preponderance of probabilities. In contrast, adjudication in criminal
cases is based on the principle that the accused is presumed to be
innocent, the accused's guilt should be proved to the hilt, and the proof
should be beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, the reliance placed by
the trial Court on criminal proceedings relating to electrocution in
deciding the civil case was not correct. This Court views that the trial
Court is supposed to have independently evaluated the evidence placed
on record without relying on the contention of the DW.1 about the
acquittal of the criminal case vide Ex.B.1 Judgment.
18. The trial court failed to acknowledge a crucial piece of evidence:
the F.I.R., Exhibit A.5, submitted by C.Siva Ram on July 23, 2000, at
2:00 PM. The complainant stated that a fatal electrical accident
occurred at 1:00 PM on the same day, leading to a phone call reporting
a person's death on the electrical line in Kampamalla. After receiving
this information, Siva Ram and his team visited the site and confirmed
the death of an unknown male person due to electric shock with
injuries. It is undisputed that the deceased died due to electrocution, a
fact supported by the plaintiffs through Ex.A.3 (a certified copy of the
inquest report) and Ex.A.4 (a certified copy of the post-mortem
certificate). Furthermore, the evidence provided by PW.2 and PW.3
10 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
corroborates the circumstances surrounding the deceased's death. They
were engaged in fixing the transformer on daily wages, a fact that aligns
with the version presented in the F.I.R. PW.2 and PW.3, who have been
consistently involved in electrical works in the village, testified to these
events. There is no reason to doubt their testimony; they had no motive
to falsely implicate DW.1 in this case.
19. In Civil cases, the preponderance of probability constitutes a
sufficient ground for decision if the facts and circumstances are such
that no reasonable man would draw a particular inference from them or
if the degree of probability in the case is such that as to include any
hypothesis besides the one to be proved then the party who relies on a
particular theory cannot be said to have discharged the onus of proof of
establishing that theory. But, if the evidence is strongly prepondering in
favour of any of the two theories set up, the Court is entitled to act on
it.
20. The trial court's decision was influenced by the absence of
documentary evidence proving that DW.1, in his role as a lineman of
Kampamalla village, hired the deceased and PWs.2 and 3 to erect a
transformer at Kampamalla village. However, it's essential to note that
PWs 2 and 3 did not claim to be employees of defendants 3 to 5;
instead, they were engaged by DW.1 for specific work on that particular
day. The responsibility of obtaining documents to carry out such work
was not imposed on the private electricians, nor did defendants 3 to 5
11 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
contend that such documents were necessary for a lineman to engage
individuals for transformer installation. Typically, linemen like DW.1
managed such tasks by hiring private electricians, and there was no
indication that DW.1 was unauthorized to do so. It is pertinent to note
the absence of any investigation or report from defendants 2 to 5 after
the initiation of the suit or the filing of the charge sheet. If these
authorities had conducted an independent inquiry to validate DW.1's
claims, they could have presented their findings in court. However, their
failure to do so raised questions about their support for DW.1's version
without seeking the truth. Crucially, the burden of confirming whether
DW.1 had the authority to engage private electricians for these works
should not have fallen upon the deceased or PWs 2 and 3. The
department, represented by defendants 2 to 5, was responsible for
clarifying DW.1's authorization in hiring private electricians for
electrical works.
21. The defendants have consistently claimed that the work in
question had been finished by a private contractor a considerable time
ago. However, they have not provided any specific details regarding
when the project commenced, when it concluded, or who the private
contractor was. This lack of transparency raises doubts about the
authenticity of their statement. Typically, government departments
maintain records of all works assigned to contractors. The absence of
such records or any effort to provide specific information raises
12 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
suspicion about the validity of their claim. If their assertion were
genuine, they would have readily furnished the necessary particulars to
substantiate their argument. Their failure to do so weakens their
position significantly.
22. The argument put forth during the proceedings, suggesting that
the deceased might have gone to the site with the intention of stealing
energy, lacks substance. Energy is not an item that can be stolen
simply by going to a transformer. This vague claim appears to have
been made solely to evade responsibility for paying compensation. There
is no plausible explanation for the deceased to have approached the
transformer and engaged in work without being assigned the task by
the Assistant Lineman (DW.1). The court finds no valid grounds to
doubt the credibility of the testimonies provided by P.W.s 2 and 3 in
this matter.
23. The defendants failed to provide specific details about when the
transformer in Kampamalla village was installed. The trial court
speculated that the deceased, G. Maddileti (PW.2), and G. Sunkaiah
(PW.3) might have worked on the transformer for their personal benefit,
possibly attempting to get unauthorized access to energy. However, the
responsibility lies with the department to clarify why D.W.1 sought line
clearance from the Koilakuntla substation for the purported
rectification work on the transformer. In this context, the testimonies of
PW.4 (Junior Lineman in Koilakuntla) and PW.5 (Lineman in the
13 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
Electricity Department at 33/11 K.V.) become pertinent. PW.4 stated
that on 23.07.2000, he assumed charge of the Koilakuntla sub-station
at 12.30 PM. Around 12.40 PM, he received a call from D.W.1, the
lineman of Bheemunipadu station, stating that he was clearing the
Bheemunipadu feeder line. D.W.1 provided line clearance number 30
and indicated the clearance time as 7.25 AM. PW.4 verified this
information against the line clearance book and found it consistent. He
recorded this information in the logbook at 12:40 PM. Subsequently, at
around 12.45 PM, he attempted to charge the line, but it tripped on E.L.
After resetting the E.L indicator, he charged the line again, but the
Bheemunipadu feeder tripped once more. He documented these
incidents in the logbook. This sequence of events raises questions about
the legitimacy of the actions taken by the department and D.W.1
regarding the line clearance and subsequent tripping. The
inconsistencies in these actions need to be adequately explained,
especially given the circumstances surrounding the electrocution
incident.
24. PW.5 provided testimony indicating that on 23.07.2000, he
maintained and recorded entries in the log book from 7:00 AM to 12:30
PM. At 12.30 PM, he handed over the log book and line clearance book
to M. Ramaiah (PW.4). According to PW.5, DW.1 approached him
around 7.25 AM, requesting line clearance for the Bheemunipadu
village feeder for transformer work. He duly recorded this request in the
14 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
log book, noting the time of giving line clearance and assigning line
clearance number 30. He issued the line clearance, a process involving
assigning a specific number to the concerned lineman. After the work
was completed, the lineman returned the line clearance, mentioning the
line clearance number, following which power would be restored to the
respective feeder. On that day, DW.1's signature was obtained in the log
book, and the line clearance number was communicated to him. The
line clearance, noted as number 30, was returned when PW.4 took over
his duty. This testimony was corroborated by Ex.A.6 and A.7 (log books)
and Ex.A.8, an entry in Ex.A.6 and A.7. The court found this evidence
to be compelling and establishing DW.1's attendance for transformer
work, aligning with the version provided by PWs.2 and 3. This court is
of view that PWs.4 and 5 had no reason to provide false testimony
against DW.1's interests, especially considering their employment
within the department. The documents (Ex.A.6 to Ex.A.8) further
supported the statements of PWs.2 and 3, and there was nothing
elicited in cross-examination discrediting their testimonies, except for
attempts to suggest inconsistencies. The said evidence of PWs.4 and 5
is also supported by DW.2's evidence, which is reproduced as follows:
.....The said lineman indeed obtained Line Clearance from the
electric sub-station, Koilakuntla, before proceeding with the
execution work in respect of the relevant section, i.e.,
Bhimunipadu and Kampamala villages at about 7.45 AM on
23.07.2000. He returned to L.C. at about 12.45 PM after
attending to the complaint of the consumer...............
I do not know whether Azeem/DW.1 engaged deceased
Chinna Naganna and Maddilety for conversion work. The
15 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
death of Naganna due to electrocution occurred on
23.07.2000 at about 12.45 PM. This fact is mentioned in the
Log Book of our department. Indeed, Naganna died on
account of electrocution.....
25. The evidence of DW.2 (Assistant Divisional Manager) supports the
version of P.W.s 4 and 5 to attend clearance work and entries in the log
book to that effect. When the suit is filed against the department, this
Court views that DW.2 was supposed to have made enquiries about the
stand taken by the plaintiffs that the deceased was engaged by Azeem
(DW.1). As such, this Court views that the plaintiff's case is not
disputed by the department, more particularly in view of the DW.2's
evidence as referred to above.
26. This Court views that had PWs.4 and 5 deposed falsehood against
the department's interest, it would have initiated departmental action
against them. As they have no reason to depose falsehood to protect the
interest of DW.1, they have given the correct version in the Court
concerning the log books maintained by them. Their evidence disproves
the stand taken by the defendants.
27. The testimony of PWs.2 and 3 clearly establishes that DW.1
engaged the deceased along with PWs.2 and 3 to fix the transformer on
daily wages. During the course of this work, DW.1 carelessly and
negligently informed the powerhouse, Koilakuntla, over the telephone to
release the electric supply. As a result, power was supplied, leading to
the deceased's tragic death on the spot due to shock and burns. Even
16 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
though a criminal case was registered against DW.1 and a charge sheet
was filed, DW.1 did not provide actual version before the court to
safeguard his interest, probably as he was arrayed as an accused in the
criminal case. Despite DW.1 not being directly added as a party to the
proceedings, it does not invalidate the plaintiffs' claim. DW.1 was an
employee of the department, and he engaged the services of the
deceased, PWs 2, and 3, to carry out the repair works. Consequently,
the defendants 3 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation. If DW.1 was not authorized to engage private electricians
for the work, the department could have taken appropriate action
against him. However, this does not negate the plaintiffs' right to claim
compensation, as the deceased tragically died due to electrocution while
carrying out the work entrusted by DW.1.
28. In a decision reported in Shail Kumari vs M.P. Electricity
Board1, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed thus:
"8. xxx The standard of care required of a body like the
Electricity Board is high due to the dangerous nature of
electricity. It is negligence on its part to omit to use all
reasonable known means to keep the electricity harml ess.
There is no burden on the plaintiff to prove negligence. If
the defendant produces no material evidence of negative
negligence, negligence will be presumed.
....It is expected of the Board to do whatever is required to be
done to avoid an accident. Its negligence cannot be equated
with the negligence of an individual or situational negligence.
There is a presumption of negligence when an accident of this
nature occurs. The heavy onus is cast on the Board. It is
required to discharge the onus....."
2001 LawSuit (MP) 329
17 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
29. In a decision reported in M.P. Electricity Board vs Shail
Kumar2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"7. It is admitted that the responsibility to supply electric
energy in a particular locality was statutorily conferred on
the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or
death of a human being who gets unknowingly trapped in
it, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of
the electric energy supplier.
8. Even assuming that all such measures have been
adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving
hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under
the law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by
any other person, irrespective of any negligence or
carelessness on the part of the managers of such
undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable
risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The
liability cast on such a person is known, in law, as "strict
liability".
30. The doctrine of strict liability had its origin in English Common
Law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands V.
Fletcher3; Justice Blackburn had observed thus:
"The rule of law is that the person who, for his own
purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there
anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at
his peril, and if he does so, he is prima facie answerable
for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its
escape."
The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed
in many subsequent decisions in England, and decisions of
the apex Court are legion to that effect. A Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of
India, A.I.R. 1990 SC 1480 and a Division Bench in Gujarat
State Road Transport Corpn. V. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai,
A.I.R. 1987 SC 1690, had followed the principle in Rylands
(supra) with approval. The same principle was reiterated in
2002 LawSuit (SC) 35
1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330
18 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., A.I.R.
2001 SC 485."
31. The Privy Council has observed in Quebec Railway, Light Heat
and Power Company Ltd. V. Vandry and others4 that the electricity
company is liable for the damage without proof that they had been
negligent. Even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account
of a violent wind and high tension current found its way through the
low tension cable into the premises of the respondents was held to be
not a justifiable defence. Thus, merely because the illegal act could be
attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the
Board regarding the live wire lying on the road.
32. In Saleema Begum and others V. State of J.K. and others5, the
High Court of J & K followed the Apex Court's Judgment in M. C. Mehta
V. Union of India6, has gone even beyond the principle laid down in
"Rylands v. Fletcher" by holding as follows:
"We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in
a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses
a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons
working in the factory and residing in the surrounding
areas owes an absolute and non delegable duty to the
community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on
account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the
activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be
held to be under an obligation to provide that the
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is
engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of
safety and if any harm results on account of such activity,
1920 Law Reports Appeal Cases 662
2022 LawSuit (J&K) 888
1987 AIR(SC) 1086
19 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for
such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to
say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm
occurred without any negligence on its part. Since the
persons harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity carried on by the enterprise would not
be in a position to isolate the process of operation from the
hazardous preparation of substance or any other related
element that caused the harm must be held strictly liable
for causing such harm as a part of the social cost for
carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity." (Emphasis supplied)
33. In Superintending Engineer (Elec.) Operation Circle, Medak vs
Jangiti Bhommamma7, wherein the Composite High Court of Andhra
Pradesh held as under:
"14.4 Dealing with the principle enshrined in the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur and the contention that the initial onus of
proof is on the defendants and that the defence is
untenable given the principle of strict liability, it is
necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Motukuri
Bheemavvas case (supra).
34. On an appraisal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, it is manifest
that DW.1 (Assistant Lineman) had acted negligently by informing the
concerned to release the power while works were being carried out. Had
he taken proper care, the death of the deceased would have been
avoided. In the event of a breach of public or statutory duty or
negligence, compensation can be fixed against the department.
Consequently, the application of vicarious liability can be invoked.
2019(0) ACJ 2160
20 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
35. The reading of the documents placed before the trial Court
clearly shows that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the
department's employee.
36. After careful consideration, the trial Court has not correctly
appreciated the evidence. The findings arrived at by the trial Court need
to be corrected; it did not appreciate the evidence in a proper and
perspective manner, and the view taken by the trial court requires
interference. I disagree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
POINT NOs.2 & 3:
37. There is no specific method of computing the compensation
provided under the Electricity Act, and the rules framed there for death
due to electrocution. However, as the death has been caused due to
negligence and illegal use of electricity, it would be appropriate to apply
the method as provided for in the Motor Vehicle Act for computation.
38. According to the plaintiffs' case, the deceased was a private
electrician. In a case like this, where there is no specific evidence as to
the income of the deceased, the Apex Court in Lakshmi Devi and
Others V. Mohammad Tabber8 held that, in today's world, even
common labour can earn Rs.100/- per day. Based on the deceased's
2008 ACJ 488
21 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
occupation, this Court can safely assess the monthly earnings and the
future prospectus of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,200/-.
39. In the public interest litigation for compensation and justice to
persons who died and were injured in TISCOs function on 3.3.89 in
Jamshedpur by sudden fire, the Supreme Court-appointed Justice
Y.V.Chandrachud to assess and report; Report given after about seven
years; Claimants contending that system of multiplier in assessing
compensation is not proper and considering the report and three
decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata
Wadhwa & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors.9, observed that:
The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the
net income of the deceased available for the support of
himself and his dependants and to deduct therefrom such
part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to
spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and
pleasure and to ascertain what part of his net income the
deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the
dependants. Thereafter, it should be capitalized by
multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of
years purchased. It was also stated that much of the
calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis.
In that region, arithmetic is a good servant but a bad
master since there are so often many imponderables.
The Hon'ble Apex Further observed that:
........the multiplier method is of universal application. It is
being accepted and adopted in India by Courts, including
the Supreme Court, and as such, it would be met and
proper to apply the said method for determining the
quantum of compensation.
40. By considering the parameters indicated in the Judgment and
as schedule-II of the Motor Vehicle Act pertains to fatal accidents, this
2001 ACJ 1735
22 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
Court is inclined to apply the schedule (U/sec.163-A of Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988) to assess the compensation.
41. As per Ex.A3, the deceased's age was shown as 22 years as of
the date of the incident, which is not disputed. This Court views 1/3rd of
the deceased's earnings to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses. After the deduction of 1/3rd of the earnings as observed
above, the monthly earnings of the deceased would arrive at Rs.2,800/-
(i.e., Rs.4,200/-(-) Rs.4,200/-(x) 1/3).
42. To assess the loss of earnings, this Court views that '17' is the
appropriate multiplier to assess the compensation. Thus, the
dependency loss can arrive at Rs.5,71,200/- (Rs.2,800/- x 12 x 17).
43. This Court views that the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation
of Rs.2,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- under the
head of loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- under the head of loss of
estate. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as detailed
below:
Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,71,200/-
Towards funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 2,500/-
---------------------
Total: Rs. 5,80,700/-
----------------------
44. After considering the material on record, this Court holds that
the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.5,80,700/- with interest at 6% per
23 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
annum. Given the discussion above in the Appeal, this Court warranted
interference with the impugned Judgment and allow the Appeal
preferred by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the points are answered.
45. As a result, the Appeal is partly allowed. The trial Court's
decree and Judgment are modified by enhancing the compensation
from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5,80,700/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty
Thousand Seven Hundred only), with costs and interest at 6% p.a., from
the date of suit till realization. Out of the compensation awarded, the 1st
plaintiff is entitled to Rs.3,30,700/- with accrued interest and costs; the
2nd plaintiff is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- with accrued interest; the
defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each with accrued
interest. On such deposit, 1st plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2, are
permitted to withdraw their share on filing appropriate applications
before the trial Court. It is clear that the 2nd plaintiff, shown to be a
minor, is entitled to compensation only after attaining his majority.
Defendants 3 to 5 are directed to deposit the compensation, excluding
the amount already deposited, within two months of receiving a copy of
this Judgment. In the circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear
their costs in the Appeal.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 05.10.2023
SAK
24 T.M.R., J
A.S. No.1047 of 2012
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
APPEAL SUIT NO.1047 OF 2012
DATE: 05.10.2023
SAK
