Andhra Pradesh Northern Power ... vs Irfana Anjum
2022 Latest Caselaw 6754 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

                APPEAL SUIT No. 276 OF 2022

JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment

and decree dated 15.07.2022 in O.S.No.66 of 2014 on the file of

I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein and whereby,

the suit filed by the respondent herein claiming compensation

for the injuries sustained by her due to electrocution was partly

allowed with costs granting compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-with

interest at 6 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of

realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by

the defendants in the suit.

2. The appellants herein are defendants and the respondent

herein is plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the

parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that

on 01.11.2010 at about 05.00 PM, she along with another girl

was playing on the roof top of building owned by one Imamuddin

situated at Kandugula Village, Huzurabad, Karimnagar. At that

time, she accidentally came into contact with 11 KV HT

transformer line of defendants, which was passing near the wall

on the terrace. Immediately after the incident, the plaintiff was

shifted to hospital. Later, she was discharged on 30.12.2010.

As a result of the said accident, the plaintiff, who is aged about

13 years suffered burn injuries all over the body and her left

hand and toe of left foot were amputated. The said incident

occurred on account of improper maintenance of supply and

distribution lines of the defendants.

4. In this regard, a complaint was lodged before Station

House Officer, Huzurabad Police Station on 30.11.2010.

Subsequently, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the

defendants claiming damages of Rs.10,00,000/-, but in vain.

The father of plaintiff is poor agricultural labourer and plaintiff

was 13 years old and she was bright student in the school. Due

to the said incident, her education was spoiled and she was also

disabled from doing anything. Therefore, she filed the present

suit claiming compensation of Rs.29,31,300/- from the

defendants.

5. The case of the defendants is that they denied the

allegation of improper maintenance of supply and distribution

lines. According to them, the supply wires were at a height of

19 to 20 feet from ground and they are 4 to 4 ½ feet away from

building terrace, where the incident occurred. Hence, there is

no chance of plaintiff coming into contact with the wires, unless

she intentionally touches the wires.

6. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff has not

explained how she came into contact with the electric wire which

is at a distance of 4 to 4 ½ feet away from the building terrace.

The defendants claim that there is no negligence on their part.

Further, it is their contention that the owner of the building,

Imamuddin constructed the building without taking any

precautionary measures for avoiding such type of accidents.

The said Imamuddin, also did not make any complaint for

relocating such electric wires. Defendants further contended

that there is inordinate delay of 30 days in lodging the complaint

to police, which creates a doubt over the claim of the plaintiff.

They denied that the injuries were result of electrocution and

contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any

compensation. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were

framed by the trial Court:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount of Rs.29,31,300/- towards damages and for costs, as prayed for?

2. Whether there is no negligence on the part of the defendants in causing the incident?

3. Whether there is any delay in reporting the matter to the Police?

4. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is excessive and exorbitant?

5. To what relief?"

8. The plaintiff, in support of her case, examined P.Ws.1 to 5

and relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-7. The defendants, to support

their case, examined D.W.1, but did not mark any exhibits.

9. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record

held that the plaintiff is entitled for compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- and consequently, suit was allowed in part.

Hence, the present appeal is filed at the instance of defendants.

10. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed to dispose of

the appeal finally, as such the matter was taken up for final

hearing.

11. Heard both sides.

12. In the light of above submissions, the points emerged for

consideration in this appeal are as follows:

"1. Whether the incident occurred as a result of any negligence on the part of the defendants?

2. Whether the proof of negligence is required, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?

3. Whether the compensation fixed by trial Court is fair and just?

4. To what relief?"

Point Nos.1 to 4:

13. The evidence on record shows that the incident occurred

on 01.11.2010. The incident according to the plaintiff occurred

on the building terrace owned by one Imamuddin. Plaintiff was

only 13 years of age and the incident occurred when she came

into contact with the high tension wire which was passing from

the side of the building of said Imamuddin. The incident

occurred when the chuni (scarf) of the plaintiff fell on the wire

on account of flowing wind and when she pulled the said chunni

(scarf) she came into contact with the high tension wire and

suffered with injuries.

14. The contention of the defendants is that the electric lines

were installed at the height of 19 to 20 feet from the ground and

at a distance of 4 to 4 ½ feet away from the terrace of building of

Imamuddin. In order to prove such claim, the defendants have

not adduced any evidence except oral contentions. They also

failed to prove the height of the building from ground, so as to

rule out the possibility of nearness of high tension wires. The

defendants claimed that the electric lines are passing 4 to 4 ½

feet away from the terrace of building of Imamuddin and they

contend that when such is the distance to terrace, there is no

possibility of the plaintiff coming into contact with electric wires,

unless the contact has been made voluntarily.

15. There is no dispute that the defendants are involved in

dangerous and hazardous activities and if there is any injury

resulting from such activity, they are liable to pay damages, on

account of such injury, which is result of their activity, based on

principles of strict liability. In fact, no negligence requires to be

proved.

16. The age of plaintiff at the time of incident is 13 years. No

safety measures have been taken by defendants to avoid

accidental contact by the children. The evidence also reveals

that there is a delay of 30 days in lodging police report. The fact

remained is that initially the victim was shifted to Hyderabad for

treatment, immediately after the accident. The discharge

summary of the plaintiff also shows that she was admitted as

inpatient for nearly two months. When such is the scenario,

there are sufficient reasons for delay in lodging police report.

Unfortunately, when report is lodged, the police did not do any

investigation, instead the complaint was kept in dormant state

and no action was taken. The discharge summary also shows

that the injuries sustained by plaintiff were on account of

electric shock, which is not seriously disputed. From the

evidence on record, it can be held that the accident was result of

electric shock which was sustained by her when she came into

contact with the high tension wire passing near the building of

Imamuddin.

17. Learned counsel for defendants contended that the trial

Court found that the evidence of Doctors was not reliable in

fixing the percentage of liability, but fixed the disability as 100 %

and that finding of the trial Court is contrary to its own finding.

According to him, the compensation awarded by the trial Court

is excessive.

18. The contention of the learned counsel for plaintiff is that

there is a clear amputation of upper left limb apart from

amputation of toe of left leg. The amputation is not seriously

disputed. Further, the plaintiff was only 13 years of age and she

was not earning member of her family, when the incident

occurred. He further contended that the Court should also look

into the pain, suffering, loss of marital prospects and reduction

in life expectancy, on account of the amputation at a very young

age of 13 years. While fixing the pecuniary loss, the Court has

to take into account the future loss of earnings and future

prospects of employment considering the educational

background of the victim.

19. There is no doubt that the trial Court has given a finding

that the evidence of Doctors, who have issued the disability

certificate, is not convincing and the disability certificate was not

relied upon. Looking at the table provided in the Workmen

Compensation Act, 1923 or any other table provided under any

Act of such nature, amputation of upper limb is given disability

of 90% and if disability of toe of left leg is also included it comes

to 100 % disability of various organs of the body. While

considering total disability, the impact of such disability on

functional disability of entire body has to be taken into

consideration. This was not expressly stated while fixing up the

compensation. Further, the trial Court has not clearly stated

under what heads amounts are granted. Apart from the

pecuniary damages, the plaintiff is also entitled for

non-pecuniary damages such as pain and suffering, reduction of

life expectancy, loss of future income and decrease in marital

prospects etc.

20. Considering all the above aspects, this Court feels that

instead of compensation and interest awarded by trial Court,

Rs.10,00,000/- amount in lump sum can be fixed ignoring the

interest, which is granted by the trial Court. To that extent, the

judgment and decree of the trial Court is liable to be modified.

21. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the

judgment and decree dated 15.07.2022 in O.S.No.66 of 2014 on

the file of I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is set aside

and modified as follows:

a. The compensation granted by the trial Court is modified

and this Court fixes compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in lump

sum under all the heads.

b. The above amount fixed by this Court shall be paid to the

plaintiff by the defendants within three (3) months from the date

of receipt of copy of this judgment.

c. If the said amount is not paid within prescribed period

then interest at 24 % per annum would be carried on the

amount fixed, till the date of realization.

d. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________ M.LAXMAN, J

Date: 13.12.2022 GVR