The Chairman A.P.S.E.B. Hyd 3 Ors vs N.Nagamani And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6759 Tel

      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                 APPEAL SUIT No. 828 of 2003

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Electricity Board Officials

(defendants) against the judgment and decree of the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, passed in Original Suit

No.80 of 1995 (O.P.No.70 of 1990), dated 05.08.2002.

The appellants herein are Electricity Board Officials

(defendants) and respondents 1 to 3 herein are plaintiffs

before the trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal,

respondent No.2 herein (plaintiff No.2) died and

respondent No.4 herein was impleaded as his legal

representative as per the orders of this Court in ASMP

No.1499 of 2017 dated 06.02.2019. Respondent

No.3/plaintiff was declared as major as per the orders of

this Court in ASMP No.1500 of 2017 dated 06.02.2019. For

the sake of convenience, the ranks given to the parties in

O.S. No.80 of 1995, before the trial Court, will be adopted

throughout this judgment.

The facts, in brief, are as under:

Plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed the above suit before the trial

Court against the defendants claiming compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date

of suit till the date of realisation. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are

parents of one Nagaboina Yelamanda (hereinafter referred

to as 'the deceased'); plaintiff No.3 and respondent No.4

herein. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 underwent family planning

operation after the birth of the three children. On

06.10.1988, the son of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the deceased,

aged about 5 years, after returning from school, went

outside along with his sister (Plaintiff No.3), aged about 2 ½

years, and while they were playing in front of their house at

Madhira, a live electric wire fixed to the Transformer

situated by the side of the road, snapped and fell on the

deceased and Plaintiff No.3, resulting instantaneous death

of the deceased and severe burn injuries to plaintiff No.3

and immediately plaintiff No.3 was shifted to the

Government hospital, Madhira, where she had undergone

treatment for six months. It is stated that plaintiff No.2

incurred an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards medical

expenses of plaintiff No.3, however, there was no

development in the growth of the 3rd plaintiff. It is further

stated that due to the incident, plaintiff No.3 sustained

complete deformity and as such her marriage prospects

have been greatly diminished. It is also stated that the

deceased, who was aged five years by the date of his death,

was a brilliant boy and he would have earned at least

Rs.25/- per day and as such the plaintiffs had lost earnings

of their deceased son. Thus, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 prayed for

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest. Initially, they

had filed OP No.70 of 1990 as indigent persons and the

same was allowed.

The defendants in the written statement contended

that on 06.10.1988 at about 6.00 P.M. there was heavy gale

and wind and as such one phase conductor was cut and

snapped near the L.T. Pin Inculator of S3 wire line coming

from Distribution Transformer at Rayapatnam road in

Madhira due to sparks developed at the Inculator, as a

result of which, the son of plaintiffs 1 and 2 died on the spot

and their daughter was sustained burn injuries, as they

were playing on that place at that time. It is further

contended that the incident was informed to the

Department and that the staff immediately inspected the

spot and rectified the same. It is further contended that as

there was no negligence on their part, they are not liable to

pay any compensation to the plaintiffs and, therefore,

prayed to dismiss the suit.

During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs,

PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked.

On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 was examined, however,

no documentary evidence was produced.

The trial Court, after considering the entire evidence,

both oral and documentary, and the respective contentions

of the learned Counsel on either side, held that there was

negligence on the part of the defendants in maintaining the

electric service lines. It was also held that the defence of the

defendants that there was heavy gale and rain on the date of

incident was not proved. Further, the trial Court, after

considering the age of the minor child (deceased) and also

the injuries sustained by plaintiff No.3, directed the

defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to plaintiff No.2

towards compensation for the death of the deceased and

also Rs.50,000/- for the injuries caused to plaintiff No.3 with

interest at 12% per annum from the date of incident till the

date of realisation. It was also observed by the trial Court

that the defendants are liable to pay Court Fee of Rs.4,426/-

as the suit was filed as in forma pauperis.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the

present appeal has been preferred by the Electricity Board

Officials (defendants). It was mainly contended that there

was no negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants

in maintaining the electric lines and that the incident was

occurred purely on accidental manner and as such the trial

Court erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- towards

compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged

five years on the date of incident, even though he was not

an earning member, and also Rs.50,000/- to plaintiff No.3

for the injuries sustained by her. It was further contended

that instead of awarding compensation from the date of

suit, the trial Court erred in awarding the same from the

date of incident. Further, the rate of interest at 12% per

annum granted by the trial Court is highly excessive.

Therefore, the appellants/defendants requested the Court

to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and

decree of the trial Court.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side.

Perused the entire material available on record.

The trial Court relied upon a decision of the Supreme

Court in M.P.Electricity Board V. Shail Kumar and others,1

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 and also for

the injuries sustained by plaintiff No.3. Therefore, the

argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the

appellants/defendants that there was no negligence on the

part of the department officials in causing the incident, is

not tenable. Further, the plaintiffs claimed Rs.1,00,000/-

2002 (3) ALT 34

only as compensation for the death of the deceased, who

was aged about five years and hence, the trial Court granted

the said amount. The argument of the learned Counsel for

the appellants/defendants is that the deceased was not an

earning member. Admittedly, the parents of the deceased

underwent family planning operation and as such there was

no possibility of them getting a child. Further, they had

sustained mental agony due to the death of their only son at

tender age and if at all he was alive, he might have

supported their parents in all aspects. Taking into

consideration of the said facts, the trial Court rightly

awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for

the death of the deceased. So also, the trial Court, allowed

I.A.No.35 of 2000 filed by the plaintiffs and sent plaintiff

No.3 to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, for medical

examination and that the members of Medical Board

examined plaintiff No.3 and issued Physical Disability

Certificate, in which it was stated that there were two scars

on the body of plaintiff No.3, one is over the right side of

the back and another is over the thigh and lower limb and

thus there is no physical disability to plaintiff No.3.

However, due to the scars, the marriage prospects of

plaintiff No.3 are very low and she has to suffer a lot

throughout her life. Thus, the trial Court rightly granted a

sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the injuries

sustained by plaintiff No.3. Therefore, I am of the

considered view that the findings of the trial Court, which

are cogent and clinching, do not warrant any interference by

this Court.

In so far as the rate of interest granted by the trial

Court is concerned, the learned Counsel for the

appellants/defendants submits that no reasons were

assigned by the trial Court for granting interest at 12% per

annum on the compensation amount and as such he

requested the Court to reduce the interest from 12% per

annum to 6% per annum. On the other hand, the learned

Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the

plaintiffs filed the suit as in forma pauperis and though the

compensation amount was deposited before the trial Court,

they were not permitted to withdraw the same and as such

the interest granted by the trial Court is reasonable and this

Court need not be interfered with the said finding.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel

on either side, I am of the view that it is just and reasonable

to reduce the interest from 12% per annum to 9% per

annum.

Accordingly, the rate of interest granted by the trial

Court on the compensation amount is modified from 12%

per annum to 9% per annum from the date of incident till

the date of realization. Except to the extent of reduction in

rate of interest, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is

confirmed in other aspects.

In the result, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA 13.12.2022 Gsn