The A.P. State Electricity Board vs Thota Shobha Rani
2021 Latest Caselaw 4598 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

                   A.S.No.3783 OF 2000

JUDGMENT:

1. The present Appeal is directed against the

judgment and decree dated 20.10.1998 in O.S.No.128 of 1996

passed by the Principal Senior Judge at Warangal, wherein

the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein for damages in the

form of compensation for death of her husband due to

electrocution was dismissed.

2. The appellant is the 2nd defendant, 1st defendant is

the plaintiff, 2nd respondent is the 1st defendant, 3rd

respondent is the 3rd defendant in the suit. For brevity, the

ranks of the parties as were referred in the suit were

maintained.

3. The short case of the plaintiff is that the deceased

i.e., Thota Kanakanadham was her husband and he was

working as a lineman with the 1st defendant. On 17.08.1995,

while he was attending the trunk lines in discharge of regular

course of duties in between Mulugu and Kamalapur, he died

due to electrocution passing through the telephone lines. The

plaintiff's further pleading show that electricity was passing

through the telephone lines due to poor maintenance of lines

by the 1st defendant as well as the 2nd defendant. They have

not maintained safety of overhead lines. On account of

negligent maintenance of lines by the 1st and 2nd defendants,

the incident occurred. The plaintiff's husband was earning

Rs.2,500/- per month and he was aged about 35 years. On

account of death of plaintiff's husband, she has deprived of

his contribution. The 3rd defendant is the mother of the

deceased. She also pleads in tune with the plaintiff.

4. The 1st defendant's written statement shows that

the suit is not maintainable since separate Tribunal was

constituted for Workmen Compensation. There is no

negligence on the part of the 1st defendant. According to

them, there are several electrical crossings of HT and LT lines

over telephone lines at different places enroute. The

guardings were provided by dots and the guardings provided

by the 2nd defendant do not have earthings. The said fact was

informed to the 2nd defendant on several occasions, but there

was no response. It is also pleaded that power parallelism is

existing at some places which come under the forest area on

account of such parallelism, there is possibility of induction

of high voltage on the telephone lines. The deceased was

informed to take precautions but he has ignored the same.

They denied the monthly earnings and age of the deceased.

5. The 2nd defendant's pleadings show that they did

not admit the incident and also negligence on their part.

There is no power passage from the electrical lines of the 2nd

defendant. The 1st defendant himself maintain generators for

generating power required to maintain the working condition

of trunk lines. There is possibility of electricity generated

through generators in causing of death. There was joint

inspection by the authorities of both the defendants. At the

crossings of lines, there was sufficient guarding provided by

the defendants. There is no possibility of the 2nd defendant

contribution in causing the death. The 2nd defendant also

denied the earnings and age of the deceased.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues

were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit

damages from D1 and 2?

2. Whether there is no cause of action against D2?

3. Whether D1 and 2 were negligent., which resulted in

the death of Thota Kanakanadham?

4. To what relief?

7. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W1 and relied

upon Exs.A1 to A12 and defendants examined themselves as

D.W1 and D.W2 and relied upon Exs.B1 to B5.

8. Heard.

9. The points for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the death of the deceased was on account of negligent maintenance of electrical and telephone lines by the defendant Nos.1 and 2?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the trial Court is just and reasonable?

10. The plaintiff's evidence shows that the death of the

deceased was on account of electrocution and such

electrocution occurred on account of negligent maintenance

of telephone lines and electrical lines at the crossings.

Admittedly, there are 21 crossing levels as per the evidence of

the defendants. The defendants evidence also show that at

several places there are several parallel lines running. It is

also admitted case that without the contact to lines of both

the defendants, the induction of electricity is possible to surge

in electrical voltage, if the required distance is not

maintained.

11. The evidence of D.W2, who is the official witness

to 2nd defendant show that for 11 KV lines, the minimum

distance required to be maintained is 20 feet and for 30 KV

lines, the minimum distance between the two lines is 25 feet.

It is also admitted that there are 21 crosssings and they also

admitted that in the forest area, there is a parallel power

supply lines along with telephone lines. The evidence of D.W1

and D.W2 show that there is a possibility of electrical

induction on account of lack of sufficient distance between

two lines.

12. In the present case, absolutely, there is no

evidence from both the defendants to that effect that wherever

the parallel lines passing through and wherever the crossing

of lines are there, the minimum required distance was

maintained at the time of incident. There is no such findings

from the joint inspection conducted by both the officials of the

department. The admitted case of the defendants was that in

the forest area, they have parallel lines and there is a

possibility of sufficient distance is not maintained on account

of lines swinging due to wind. It is also the case of the 1st

defendant that at the guarding stations wherever the

crossings are there, the 2nd defendant has not given proper

earthings. The joint inspection report conducted by both the

defendants do not indicate any proper earthing was

maintained at the crossings. Be that as it may, both the

parties are dealing with the dangerous things. The principles

of strict liability applies to the present set of facts without

proof of negligence. Therefore, the trial Court rightly

considered the evidence on the aspect of liability of 1st and 2nd

defendants. Such findings of the trial Court is not required to

be interfered.

13. The claim amount was only Rs.2,50,000/- and age

of the deceased was 35 years only. There is evidence from the

plaintiff that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month

on the date of incident and this fact is not seriously disputed

by the 1st defendant who is the employer. When the

principles adapted in Motor Vehicles Act is adapted in

calculation of amount, the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is less

than what the plaintiff is entitled. It appears that the plaintiff

has filed enhancement petition in the trial Court, that was

dismissed and there is no challenge to such findings.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, the amount

awarded by the trial Court is just and reasonable which

requires no interference.

14. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board has

contended that interest awarded is on higher side compared

to existing lending rates of the RBI. The fact is that interest

was granted considering the lending rates prevailing as on the

date of institution of the suit. Though the lending rates as of

now is less when compared to what is awarded but an

average lending rate is taken from 1996 to the present date

12% appears to be very reasonable. Therefore, I do not find

any merit to reduce the interest part also. It is also made

clear that the 1st and 2nd defendants are liable jointly and

severally which is not clarified in the decree impugned.

15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________ M. LAXMAN, J 27.12.2021 dv