The Md, Apcpdcl 3 Ors. vs N. Andaloo, Nalgonda Dist. Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6292 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                 APPEAL SUIT No.77 of 2005

JUDGMENT:

This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment of the trial

Court in O.S.No.15 of 1998 dated 03.01.2004.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit against the officials of the electricity

department claiming damages of Rs.3,24,000/- with interest at

the rate of 12% per annum due to the deaths of their parents on

07.10.1993 at about 11:43 P.M in Yellanki village. Plaintiffs

stated that on 07.10.1993 when they were sleeping along with

their parents in Yellanki village, at about 11:43 P.M an electric

live wire which is passing above their house cut off from the

electrical pole and fell down on the sheep and three sheeps were

died due to electrocution. On hearing the sound of sheep, the

parents of the plaintiffs tried to rescue the same and they also

died due to electrocution. Plaintiff No.1 became panic and tried

to rescue and she also received electric shock and burn injuries.

She took treatment in Government Civil Hospital, Ramannapet

and also in Choutuppal, Hyderabad. Due to electrocution she

became weak and her nervous system was also affected and she

is unable to eke out her livelihood. They reported the matter to the Sub Inspector of Police, Ramannapet and registered

Cr.No.54 of 1993 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and inquest was

also conducted on the dead bodies of the plaintiffs. As per the

report, death was due to shock as a result of electrocution. The

incident was reported to defendant No.4 and to the higher

officials of the electricity department. After 30 days they shifted

the electric lines which were hanging dangerously over the

house of the plaintiffs and other villagers. The Government has

assigned the lands to the father of the plaintiffs and other

weaker sections about 18 years back for construction of houses.

Immediately after constructing houses, it is observed that

electric low tension wires were passing above their houses, as

such they requested electricity department to shift the said lines

and gave representation on 30.05.1985 and also on 01.10.1985,

but no action was taken by them. The electricity department

has laid G.I., wire on the same existing lines over the said

houses to give domestic electric supply to the neighboring

houses. As they were fitted carelessly, whenever there was wind

or rain, flames are coming out of wires. Even on the date of

incident there were flames on the pole at the house of the

plaintiffs. Due to continuous flames, G.I wire was cut down and

fell on the sheeps. Due to untimely death of the parents of the

plaintiffs, plaintiffs lost their bread winners. Though plaintiff

No.1 married one person, she is staying with her parents.

Plaintiff No.2 is forced to stop his studies from 5th class to do

the work in the lands. Therefore, plaintiffs issued legal notice on

05.06.1994 to the defendants demanding compensation. As

there is no reply, they filed suit for recovery of compensation.

3. The defendant No.3 filed written statement, defendant

Nos.1,2 and 4 filed adoption memo. They stated that low tension

lines were laid during June, 1963. At that time weaker sections

colony and the house of the plaintiffs did not at all exist. It was

agricultural land and the lines were laid for the purpose of

agriculture. The weaker sections were resorting to construct

huts under already existing low tension lines. On 07.10.1993

the neutral of electric phase 4 wire line cut off from the pole and

fell on the sheep. As the neutral wire fell on the ground, came in

contact with the adjacent phase wire and energized. As a result,

three sheeps got electrocuted and died. The deceased Lachaiah

aged about 55 years and his wife tried to rescue the sheeps and

came into contact with the live wire, got electrocuted and died

on the spot. On the next day whenever they came to know about

the incident, they removed the hanging wires. They further

stated that no complaint was given to the electricity department

on 30.05.1985 and 01.10.1985. They denied the negligence and

carelessness on their part and stated that electricity department

sanctioned Rs.5,000/- each to the deceased on 15.10.1994 as

per A.P.S.E.B rules towards ex-gratia on 14.06.1994 and

29.06.1994, but the plaintiffs did not receive the same. The

claim made by the plaintiffs is exorbitant. In reply to the legal

notice dated 05.06.1994 the electricity department sanctioned

Rs.10,000/- as ex-gratia and requested the Court to dismiss the

suit.

4. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1

to A15. Defendants examined D.W.1 on their behalf, but they

have not marked any document. The trial Court considering the

evidence on record held that there was negligence on the part of

the electricity department and they are liable to pay

compensation and also directed them to pay damages of

Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from

the date of issuance of legal notice i.e, 05.06.1994 till the date

of realization. It is also observed that as per Order 33 Rule 10

C.P.C the Court fee payable by the plaintiffs shall be recoverable

by the State Government from the defendants, as if it is an

arrear of land revenue. Aggrieved by the said order the

electricity department preferred an appeal and mainly

contended that the trial Court relied upon the self-asserted

version of the plaintiffs without there being any independent

witnesses. They have laid electric wires in the year 1963 and the

houses of the plaintiffs were constructed later. It was not

considered that they have not made any representation for the

shifting of the electric wires from the colony, as per procedure

they shall give written representation along with deposit.

Appellants contended that the father of the plaintiffs tried to

rescue the sheeps without taking any precautions and died due

to his contributory negligence and the same was not considered

by the trial Court. Appellants also stated that accident occurred

due to Act of God, there is no negligence on their part in

maintaining electric lines. The trial Court erred in awarding

compensation and it is excessive and exorbitant, interest was

also granted from the date of issuance of the legal notice and it

is not proper. Therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the

suit.

5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire

material available on record. The trial Court considering the

evidence of record stated that there was negligence on the part

of the department in maintaining electric wires. No doubt, the

construction of houses for the weaker sections is subsequent to

the laying of the low tension wire in the year 1963. The

Government assigned land to the parents of the plaintiffs about

25 years back. It is within the knowledge of the defendants that

low tension wires were passed over the residential houses for

several years. Immediately after the incident they shifted electric

wires without any application or without any contribution from

anybody. In spite of knowledge of the fact that a residential

colony came into existence beneath the low tension line, no

steps were taken to shift the same and it amounts to negligence

and inaction on the part of the electricity department. It is the

duty of the electricity department to check and supervise the

electric poles and live wires are properly fitted and to maintain

them. Therefore, it was rightly held that there is negligence on

the part of the electricity department and they are liable to pay

compensation. According to the defendants the neutral wire was

snapped from the electric pole and fell on the ground due to

heavy gales and rain, but the Act of God is no defence for the

defendants. Flames were coming out from the poles, but

defendants did not take proper remedial measures to prevent

the snapping of wires during rainy season. Considering the said

fact, the trial Court held that defendants in the suit are liable to

pay the compensation. It was also observed that there is no

evidence to show that P.W.1 was injured due to electrocution

and unable to earn her livelihood. The prescription filed by her

was not accepted as she was not examined the doctor who

issued prescription. The trial Court considering the income of

the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month and his expected life

span as 10 to 15 years granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. P.W.1 examined

other witnesses in support of her contention. Therefore, the

argument of the appellant counsel that the trial Court relied

upon the self-asserted version of the plaintiffs without there

being any independent witnesses is not tenable. No doubt,

electric wires were laid down in the year 1963, and the house of

the deceased was constructed later and they have also not filed

any of the representation to the defendants. The argument of

the appellant counsel that there was contributory negligence on

the part of the deceased, it is natural human conduct that when

his sheep being electrocuted instantaneously he tried to rescue

the same and his wife also made all the efforts to rescue her

husband and both of them died on the spot merely because they

made efforts to rescue the sheep without taking any

precautions, it cannot be said that there was contributory

negligence on their part. In the mid-night when live electric wire

fell on the sheep and 3 sheeps died on the spot, parents of the

plaintiffs with an intention to rescue the sheep made efforts

without taking any precautions. In the spur of the moment they

may not get an idea to take precaution, as such they also got

electrocuted and died and thus the argument of the appellant

counsel is not tenable. Another ground is that the accident is

due to the Act of God, but the said plea was also taken before

the trial Court and the trial Court considering their arguments

dealt with the said act and stated that it is not an Act of God. It

cannot be said that the compensation granted is excessive

though they claimed Rs.3,24,000/-, the trial Court granted only

Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

However, the interest was granted from the date of issuance of

legal notice, but it should be modified from the date of filing of

the suit i.e., 23.07.1998. But the plaintiffs filed pauper O.P on

27.10.1994 to declare them as insolvent and to exempt them

from paying Court fee. Therefore, interest is to be granted from

the date of filing of the pauper O.P i.e, on 27.10.1994.

In the result, appeal is dismissed except to an extent of

granting interest from 27.10.1994 instead from the date of

issuance of legal notice dated 05.06.1994.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________

JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

DATED: 01.12.2022

tri

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

APPEAL SUIT No.77 of 2005

DATED: 01.12 .2022

TRI