Additional Assistant Engineer ... vs Dasari Devamanemma Manemma
2023 Latest Caselaw 4226 AP

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                      APPEAL SUIT NO.483 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is

filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the decree and Judgment

dated 07.04.2014 in O.S. No.30 of 2010 passed by the learned District

Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short, 'the trial court'). Respondents

are the plaintiffs in the suit, who filed the suit in O.S.No.30 of 2010

seeking compensation of Rs.14,79,200/- for the death of Dasari Nagendra

Rao (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the deceased'), who died due to

electrocution.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial

Court.

3. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:

(a) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the mother and daughter of

the deceased. The deceased was eking out his livelihood by

doing coolie work. His wife had passed away earlier and he

had not been remarried since then. The well being of the

deceased's daughter i.e., the 2nd plaintiff has been looked

after by the 1st plaintiff alone.

(b) On 28.11.2004 around 10.30 AM, while the deceased

was in the process of installing a bulb in the holder, when he

attempted to turn off the main electrical switch,

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

unexpectedly, an electrical current surged from the power

line to the main switch in his house, as a result, the

deceased suffered an electric shock causing several burns to

his hands. In the immediate aftermath, Dasari Sreenivasulu,

the deceased's brother, arrived and struck the deceased with

a slipper. The deceased fell unconscious. While the deceased

was shifting to the hospital, he passed away on the way.

(c) Immediately after the incident, the deceased's brother

reported it to the Kuchipudi police station. The police

registered the report as a case in Cr.No.97 of 2004 under

section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

'Cr.P.C'). They held an inquest on the deceased's body, and

subsequently sent the body for a postmortem examination.

The postmortem report confirms that the deceased had died

as a result of electric shock from contact with the live electric

wire. The tragic and untimely death occurred due to the

negligence and tortuous actions of the defendants'

employees.

(d) The plaintiffs initiated a legal action by sending a

registered notice to all the defendants demanding them to

pay Rs.8,00,000/-. All the defendants received the notice and

responded with a reply notice. In their reply, the defendants

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

made baseless and groundless allegations that lacked merit

or substance.

4. Defendants 4 and 5 adopted the written statement of defendants 1

to 3, wherein they contended that the standard procedure that the service

wire carrying power from the pole will be connected in the first instance

directly to the meter. The connections from the meter are linked to the

main switch, and from there they extended to the houses internal wiring.

The consumers are responsible for arranging wiring connections within

their homes, with the involvement of a licensed electrician, and at their

own expenses. Only upon obtaining the wiring certificate, electrical

services will be released. The electricity department used to inspect the

consumers' meters functioning. The alleged incident did not result from

any negligence on the part of the electricity department. The defendants

believe that the deceased's brother and other relatives manipulated

records to unjustly and unlawfully seek compensation by filing this suit.

In the registered notice, the deceased's occupation is mentioned as a lorry

driver, but in the plaint, it is described as Agricultural coolie worker. In

Col.No.7 of the Inquest report, the panchayatdars noted burn injuries on

the joint of the right index and middle fingers and also the left index finger

joint, stomach and left back. It discloses that the deceased's relatives

might have caused those injuries on the dead body after his death,

possibly as part of a pre-mediated plan to seek compensation from the

electrical department.

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following

issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a sum of Rs.14,79,200/- as compensation for the death of Dasari Nagendra Rao with interest as claimed?

(2) To what relief?

6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined, and Exs.A.1 to A.6 was marked. On behalf of the defendants,

D.Ws 1 and 2 were examined, and no documents were marked on their

behalf.

7. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides,

the trial Court partly decreed the suit with costs of Rs.5,44,500/- with

12% interest against the defendants from the date of filing of the suit till

the date of realization.

8. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL

representing the appellants/defendants, argued that the claim that power

supply passed to the main switch through the service wire from the pole is

not valid. According to the established procedure, the service wire is

initially connected to the meter, and from there to the cutout fuse, before

reaching the main switch. There should be no direct contact between the

service wire and the main switch, preventing any current from reaching

the main switch. The wiring within the deceased's residential house was

carried out by a private electrician and not by the department authority.

The department authority has no jurisdiction over the internal wiring of

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

individual residences. There is no record of the deceased or his family

members ever filing a complaint regarding power passing through the pole

to the main switch. Consumers are responsible for arranging the wiring

connections within their homes, and this should be done with their

personnel and at their own expense, with the involvement of a licensed

electrician. The release of electrical service is contingent upon the

production of a wiring certificate, which is unrelated to the department

authority's responsibilities. The electrical department typically inspects

meter readers to note the meter readings, and during this process, they

may temporarily switch off the main supply to check the functioning of the

meter.

9. Per contra, Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel

representing the respondents/plaintiffs, contends that the trial Court

correctly appreciated the case facts and came to a correct conclusion. The

reasons given by the trial Court do not want any modification.

10. Concerning the pleadings in the suit and the findings recorded by

the Trial 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?

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

3) Was the Judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference?

POINT NO.1:

11. It is not disputed that the 1st plaintiff is the mother and the 2nd

plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased Dasari Nagendra Rao. The

deceased's wife predeceased him, and since then, the deceased has not

married again, and the welfare of the 2nd plaintiff has been looked after by

the 1st plaintiff, i.e., her grandmother alone. The 2 nd plaintiff lost her

mother at an early age, and she was brought up by the 1st plaintiff alone.

12. The 1st plaintiff was examined as PW.1. According to her testimony,

on 28.11.2004 around 10.30 AM, while the deceased was prepared to

install a bulb in the holder and in that process, the deceased tried to stop

the main switch, suddenly, the current passed from the current pole to

the main switch in the deceased's house, due to which the deceased

sustained current shock; while he was shifting to hospital, he died on the

way. The deceased's brother Dasari Sreenivasulu was examined as PW.2.

According to his testimony; he beat the deceased with chappals to rescue

him when the deceased fell on the ground unconscious due to electric

shock. The PW.1's testimony indicates that he presented a report to the

police, and the copy of F.I.R. is marked as Ex.A.1; it is registered under

section 174 of Cr.P.C. As per Ex.A.1, its contents corroborate with PW.2's

testimony regarding his presence at the time of the incident. The plaintiffs

also relied on Ex.A.3 (inquest report) and Ex.A.4 (postmortem report) to

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

support their version of events. The trial Court accurately recognizes that

it is a fact that the deceased's death was due to electrocution.

13. DW.1 (A. Nageswara Rao) and DW.2 (L. Ram Mohan Rao) were

examined on behalf of the defendants. According to DW.1, he worked as a

Sub-Engineer in the office of A.A.E., Operation, Movva section from

17.03.2003 onwards till 31.12.2006; during this period, A.Sreenivasa Rao

was served as Additional Assistant Engineer in Movva section. The DW.1's

version is that the deceased's family altered the circumstances

surrounding his natural death to make it appear as if he had died due to

electrocution. They put forth a narrative in which the deceased, while

attempting to change a light bulb holder, supposedly tried to turn off the

main switch, resulting in an electric shock that led to his demise. During

cross-examination, DW.1 acknowledged that there was no evidence

presented to substantiate the claim that the deceased's death was a result

of an H.I.V ailment. DW.2 also testified aligning with the DW.1's version of

events. He, too, confirmed during cross-examination that no medical

evidence was provided in court to demonstrate that the deceased had

succumbed to an H.I.V ailment. However, the evidence on record appears

to corroborate the plaintiffs' case. It indicates that the deceased was

indeed electrocuted when he attempted to put off the main switch, it is

supported by the postmortem report and the injuries noted on the

deceased's body. Given these findings, it becomes difficult to accept the

defendants' argument that the deceased's family fabricated the narrative

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

of electrocution. If this were the case, the doctor who conducted the

postmortem examination would likely have observed injuries sustained by

the deceased after his death, which was not the case.

14. The trial Court also took into account that upon receiving the

report, the Kuchipudi police conducted an inspection at the site of the

incident. In the scene of offence observation report, which was prepared

on 28th November 2014, around 1:45 PM, it was noted, in the presence of

mediators, that there was evidence of current passing to the main switch

board, further supporting the claim that an electrical accident had

occurred.

15. In light of these facts, the matter at hand pertains to whether the

defendant's negligence led to the occurrence of the death of the deceased,

consequently warranting consideration for compensation to be granted to

the plaintiffs.

16. In Prafulla Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa 1, the Apex Court has

held that negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable

man guided upon these considerations which ordinarily regulate the

conduct of human affairs or the doing of something which a prudent and

reasonable man would not do.

1995 Cri LJ 1277

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

17. In Ramesh Kumar Nayak v. Union of India 2, the Apex Court

considered the meaning of negligence and held that negligence means

failure to exercise the required degree of care and caution expected of a

prudent driver.

18. In Chatra and another v. Imrat Lal and others3, the Apex

Court, while defining the meaning of negligence, has stated that

negligence means the breach of the provisions of law as also the breach of

the duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man

guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of

human affairs, would do or the doing of something which a prudent and

reasonable man would not do. The negligence or the rashness would

depend upon the facts of each case.

19. In a decision reported in Shail Kumari vs. M.P. Electricity

Board4, 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 harmless. 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....."

1995 ACJ 443 : (AIR 1994 Ori 279)

1998 (1) Civ. LJ 670 : 1997 AIHC 3631 (MP)

2001 LawSuit (MP) 329

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

20. As already indicated, it is the defendants' contention that there was

no possibility of electrical current passing from the service wire on the

pole to the main switch. However, no substantial evidence has been

provided to support this contention. The evidence adduced during the trial

clearly establishes that the incident occurred when the deceased

attempted to turn off the main switch, leading to a sudden electric shock

as the current passed from the service wire on the pole to the main switch.

There is no material or evidence to back the defendants' argument that

direct current transfer from the pole to the main switch was not possible.

Furthermore, Column No. 7 of the Inquest report contains observations

from panchayatdars, who noted burn injuries on the deceased's right

index and middle fingers, left index finger joint, stomach, and left back.

The postmortem report also shows the burn injuries on the right index

and middle fingers. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of

PWs.1 and 2 to suggest that the deceased died as a result of an H.I.V

ailment. Neither oral nor documentary evidence has been presented to

substantiate this claim. Instead, the postmortem report explicitly indicates

that the cause of death was electric shock resulting from contact with the

primary electrical wire.

21. As the trial Court, previously noted, found that the defendants did

not exercise due care with regard to the passage of current to the main

switch board. The defendants' officials had not implemented all necessary

precautions to prevent electricity from passing to the main switch through

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

the service wire from the pole. Consequently, the department has not been

able to establish that no electricity was transferred to the main switch

board. This suggests a lack of proper safety measures on the part of the

defendants, which contributed to the incident in question.

22. The cause of the deceased's death is shock due to electrocution. All

injuries are ante-mortem. The death occurred due to an electric shock

when the deceased tried to stop the main switch. Considering the material

on record, negligence on the part of the electricity department is

presumed.

23. In Saleema Begum and others vs. 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, 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

2022 LawSuit (J&K) 888

1987 AIR(SC) 1086

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

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)

24. 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).

25. Undoubtedly, the authorities bear a public duty to inspect and

ensure the proper maintenance of electricity lines. The reading of the

documents placed before the trial Court clearly shows that the incident

occurred due to the negligence of the APSPDCL officials. When it contends

that the incident happened due to the deceased's negligence, the

defendants have to place necessary evidence before the trial Court, based

on which, it is expected to give its conclusion. As contended, the

defendants placed no material to show the incident occurred due to the

deceaseds' negligence.

26. Considering this perspective, this Court deems it appropriate to

affirm that defendants 1 to 5 bear joint and several liable to compensate

2019(0) ACJ 2160

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

the respondents/plaintiffs, considering the loss incurred due to their

negligent conduct.

27. After careful consideration, the trial Court correctly appreciated

the evidence. There is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different

conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court regarding the

occurrence of the incident due to the defendants' negligence. The findings

arrived at by the trial Court are correct, and the appellants/defendants

have shown no justifiable reasons for arriving at different conclusions; the

view taken by the trial court does not call for any interference. I agree with

the conclusion reached by the trial Court. Accordingly, the point is

answered.

POINTS NO.2 AND 3:

28. In the event of a breach of public or statutory duty or negligence,

compensation can be fixed for the department's employees. Consequently,

the application of vicarious liability can be invoked. 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.

29. The trial Court's Judgment reveals that the deceased was working

as a lorry driver and had a driving licence bearing No.100/V.J.A./1993 to

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

drive heavy transport motor vehicles. After considering the deceased's

occupation, the trial Court fixed the monthly earnings of the deceased at

Rs.4,500/-. As per Ex.A.3-inquest report, the deceased was 43 years old.

There is no serious dispute regarding the deceased's age and earnings.

30. 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.8, 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. After that, it should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years of purchase. 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 and is being accepted and adopted in India by Courts, including the Supreme Court and as such, it would be meet and proper to apply the said method for determining the quantum of compensation.

2001 ACJ 1735

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

31. Considering the parameters indicated in the Judgment and as

schedule-II of the Motor Vehicle Act pertains to fatal accidents, this Court

is inclined to apply schedule-II (U/sec.163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988)

to assess the compensation.

32. In this regard, the trial Court observed that as per schedule II of

M.V.Act, for the age group of 41-45 years, the multiplier is '15'. After

deduction of 1/3rd of the earnings, the trial Court assessed the loss of

dependency at Rs.5,40,000/- and also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards

funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, and accordingly,

held that the trial Court awarded the compensation of Rs.5,44,500/- and

apportioned the compensation among the plaintiffs.

33. After considering the material on record, this Court views that the

trial Court has granted just and reasonable compensation of

Rs.5,44,500/-. Given the discussion mentioned above in the Appeal, I do

not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present

Appeal. The plaintiffs have not questioned the quantum of compensation

awarded by the trial Court by filing an Appeal or cross-objection. The trial

Court fixed the just compensation based on the evidence on record. As

such, it isn't easy to appreciate the stand taken by the defendants

regarding the quantum of compensation.

34. Given the preceding discussion, the view taken by the trial court

does not call for any interference, and the impugned Decree and

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

Judgment passed by the trial court is upheld. Accordingly, the points are

answered.

35. As a result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed without costs by

confirming the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S. No.30 of 2010, dated

07.04.2010 by the learned District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

36. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal shall stand

closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Date: 13.09.2023 SAK

T.M.R., J A.S. No.483 of 2014

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT NO.483 OF 2014

Date: 13.09.2023

SAK