D. Someswar Rao, vs The Chairman,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4088 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN


                 APPEAL SUIT No.366 of 2000



JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 07.12.1999 in O.S.No.32 of 1997 passed by the

learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, whereby and whereunder

the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of damages of

Rs.2,00,000/- on account of electrocution to his wife and

injuries to himself was dismissed.

2. The appellant herein is plaintiff and the respondents

herein are defendants in the suit O.S.No.32 of 1997. For the sake

of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in

the suit before the trial Court.

3. The appellant is a resident of House bearing Door

No.3-74 of Khanapuram of Kodad Mandal. He was living with

his wife and children and also running a Poultry Farm adjacent

to his house. There were electric wires for the supply of

electricity in the village. At the Poultry Farm, one of the wires

was snapped and the same fell on the wife of the plaintiff and

as a result of which she received electric shock and died on the

spot. The plaintiff also received injury on the palm of his left ML, J

hand and he became unconscious for about two months and he

could not run the business and Poultry Farm had to be closed.

On his enquiry, he came to know that previously electrical line

was snapped and it was repaired without installing the new

wire and as a consequence, the electric wire was again broken.

Therefore, the plaintiff claimed a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

towards damages i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of his wife,

Rs.50,000/- towards closure of the poultry business, Rs.25,000/-

towards loss of health as a result of injury caused to him, and

Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses.

4. The defendants filed written Statement. The pleadings of

the defendants show that there is no incident occurred as

pleaded by the plaintiff. All the electric lines were intact and

there is no breakage of any electrical lines and that the injuries

caused to the plaintiff are not relatable to any negligence on the

part of the defendants. According to them, if really there was a

snapping of electric wires, the same could have been brought to

the notice of the Department by the helpers and linemen

concerned and in the absence of which, it is clear that the death

of the wife of the plaintiff and injuries caused to the plaintiff

were not account of electrocution and, therefore, prayed to

dismiss the suit.

ML, J

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has

framed the following issues :

1. Whether the electric wire of the L.T. line near in Khanapuram Village were snapped and if so, the snapped live wires came into contact with the wife of the plaintiff causing instantaneous death of the plaintiff's wife and injury to the palm of left hand of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff had to close down his poultry business as a result of death of his wife and, if so, he sustained loss in the business?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages of Rs.2,00,000/- as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

6. In support his case, the plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 4 and

relied upon Exhibits A-1 to A-4 and also relied upon Exs.X-1

and X-2, which are marked through witness (PW-4). The

defendants did not adduce any evidence and remained exparte.

7. The trial Court, after examining the evidence of both the

parties, found that the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages ML, J

and accordingly dismissed the suit with costs. Hence, the

present appeal.

8. The points that arises for consideration in this appeal are

are as follows :

1. Whether the death of the wife of the plaintiff and injuries to the plaintiff were caused on account of electrocution?

2. Whether the incident of electrocution was as a result of negligence on the part of the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the amount claimed?

4. To what relief?

Point Nos.1 and 2 :

9. The plaintiff's evidence shows that electrical lines were

passing through the Poultry Farm adjacent to the residence of

the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, previously there was a

snapping of electric wires and the same were tied together by

keeping a knot without replacing the same. While so, on

03.10.1994 in the night between 7-00 p.m. and 8-00 p.m., the

plaintiff and his wife came out of their house and at that time ML, J

there was no electricity supply in the village and immediately

the electric supply was restored and electric wire was snapped

and a snapped electrical wire fell on the wife of the plaintiff and

as a result, the wife of the plaintiff died due to electrocution

and the plaintiff also suffered injuries on the palm of his left

hand and he became unconscious for about two months. To

support his case, the plaintiff has examined PWs.2 and 3

villagers, who claim to have seen the incident. The plaintiff

stated that they have seen snapping of electric wire and the

incident of electrocution.

10. Admittedly, Ex.A-1 is the Death Certificate dated

04.10.1994 issued by the Sarpanch of Khanapuram Village,

stating that the incident of electrocution occurred on 03.10.1994

and the electrical wires were snapped and the wife of the

plaintiff died on the spot. Ex.A-2 is the Death Certificate dated

06.01.1995 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kodad,

shows that the death of the wife of the plaintiff was natural

death. Ex.A-3 is the Medical Certificate dated 01.12.1998 of the

plaintiff, which shows that the plaintiff took treatment from

Doctor N. Venkateshwar Rao of Machilipatnam from 03.10.1994

to 03.12.1994. The said Certificate was issued on 01.12.1998.

ML, J

11. The plaintiff also relied upon Exs.X-1 and X-2, positive

and negative photograph, respectively of the scene of incident

and also examined PW.4. The evidence of PW.4 shows that the

said photographs were taken in the year 1999, whereas the

incident occurred in the year 1994 i.e. these photographs were

taken after institution of the suit.

12. In the present case, there is no autopsy of the dead body

of the wife of the plaintiff and the plaintiff also not examined

the Doctor, who has issued Ex.A-3 Medical Certificate dated

01.12.1998 to prove the treatment taken by the plaintiff.

Admittedly, the plaintiff has not given any complaint either to

the Electricity Department or to the police regarding occurrence

of incident. Probably, the said lapse could have been excused, if

he had lodged a report after he was recovered from the

treatment. Even after recovery of the plaintiff, there is no report

to the police about the incident.

13. In the absence of any medical evidence, it cannot be said

that the death of the wife of the plaintiff was on account of

electrocution. In the oral evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 adduced

by the plaintiff, there is some inconsistency with regard to the

incident. In fact, the plaintiff's pleadings did not indicate the

date and time of incident. There is absolutely no date given ML, J

with regard to the date of incident. Subsequently, in the

evidence only, the plaintiff has given the date on which the

incident has occurred. The trial Court has considered all these

aspects and rightly held that the death of the wife of the

plaintiff is not due to electrocution and the plaintiff also not

suffered injuries on account of negligence on the part of the

defendants and such a finding requires no interference.

Point No.3 :

14. In the light of the issues answered on Point Nos.1 and 2,

no further finding is required on this point.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________ JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

02.12.2021.

Msr ML, J

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

APPEAL SUIT No.366 of 2000

02.12.2021 (Msr)