Telangana High Court
The Chairman, Apseb, vs Smt. Razia Begum, on 12 December, 2022
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.190 of 2005
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Judgment of the trial
Court in O.S.No.55 of 1998 dated 09.02.2004.
2. Plaintiffs in the suit are wife and children of one Ahmed
who met with accident on 01.05.1996 and died while
undergoing treatment. They filed suit for compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/-. The first plaintiff is the wife and plaintiffs 2 to 5
are the minor children of the deceased. On 01.05.1996 at about
4 - 5 a.m while Ahmed going to the fields stepped on suspended
snapped live wire of low tension line passing through the fields
and sustained extensive burns and shocks and became
unconscious. He was shifted to Government Civil Hospital,
Nizamabad. The police of Navipet registered a case in Crime
No.96 of 1996 under Section 338 IPC. On 02.06.1996 he died
while undergoing treatment. The police altered the section of
law to Section 304-A I.P.C.
3. The defendants stated that they are careful in
maintaining the lines and transmission system. On the
intervening night of 01.05.1996 there was heavy wind due to
which 33KV transmission line from Nizamabad to Basar was
snapped but did not touch the ground or any neutral point and
was hanging in the air as such the supply line did not trip at
Nizamabad sub-station. As there was no indication of snapping
of wire they could not inspect and rectify the line moreover, it
was not hanging neither on road, a cart track, a pathway nor a
public place. There was a separate road from Shiva Thanda to
Mattai farm but Ahmed was passing through the said field and
sustained injuries as such he himself responsible for the
incident. If he was diligent and careful, he could have avoid the
direct impact of the live wire and thus they stated that he is
entitled for exgratia of Rs.10,000/- but not for compensation.
4. Plaintiffs examined the first plaintiff as P.W.1 and two
other witnesses on their behalf and marked Exs.A1 to A11.
Defendants have examined S. Rajaram, AAE/HT meters,
Nizamabad who worked as AAE/OP, AP Transco, Nizamabad at
the relevant time.
5. The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record,
age, occupation and income of the deceased and other
circumstances granted compensation of Rs.1,88,000/- at the
rate of 6% interest perannum out of which plaintiff No.1 is
entitled for Rs.37,600/- and the share of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5
shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank till they attain the
age of majority. Further first plaintiff is permitted to withdraw
the interest on the amount in deposit for maintenance of
plaintiff Nos.2 to 5. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is
preferred by the electricity department. They mainly contended
that there is no negligence on their part. There was heavy
gale/rain and wind which resulted in snapping of the live wire,
moreover the accident occurred only due to negligence of
Ahmed. He further stated that plaintiffs did not prove the
earnings of the deceased and he was not earning Rs.3,500/- per
month. The evidence of D.W.1 was not believed by the trial
Court and while granting quantum of compensation did not give
any deduction towards lump sum payment. Therefore,
requesting this Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial
Court.
6. The deceased was aged about 30 years and doing
agriculture. Plaintiff No.1 stated that he was earning Rs.3,500/-
per month.The trial Court considering evidence on record taken
his age as 35 years and the multiplier as 17 and his annual
income as Rs.14,400, 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal
expenses and arrived to the compensation of Rs.1,63,200/- and
Rs.7,000/- under non-pecuniary damages and Rs.20,000/-
towards special damages for pain suffer and loss of consortium
etc., This amount of Rs.1,88,000/- was rightly granted by the
trial Court and it needs no interference.
7. The trial Court relied upon a decision of the Supreme
Court in M.P.Electricity Board Vs.Shail Kumar and others,
wherein it was held that Electricity Board is liable to pay
compensation irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on
the part of the Electricity Board when a person died due to
contact with live electric wire lying on the road. The trial Court
has also observed that the liability cast upon the department is
strict liability and even if there was no negligence on the part of
the department, they are liable to pay compensation for the
death of the deceased. In view of the above citation the
Electricity Department is liable to pay the compensation even
though there is no negligence on their part. In this case the trial
Court observed that the department failed to prove that there
was heavy storm and rain at the time of incident. The deceased
died due to electrocution, his wife and minor children became
destitute. Suit was filed in the year 1998 at that time minor
children aged 9, 8, 7, 6 years respectively and they might have
become major by this time as such they are declared as majors
and permitted to withdraw the amount kept in FDR's. This
Court finds no infirmity in the order of the trial Court.
In the result, appeal is dismissed with costs confirming
the order of the trial Court in O.S.No.55 of 1998 dated
09.02.2004.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED: 12.12.2022
tri
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.190 of 2005
DATED:12.12.2022
TRI
