Aptransco Apseb vs J. Chandra Sekhara Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 3766 Tel

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

                        A.S.No.1246 of 2001


JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the judgment in O.S.No.51 of 1994, on

the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the

defendant therein preferred the present appeal against the

judgment and decree dated 23-03-2000 in the above said

suit.

2. O.S.No.51 of 1994 has been filed by three

plaintiffs, who are husband and children and one Vanaja

Lochana, who died due to electrocution on 13-08-1993, and

they filed the said suit against the appellant herein i.e., State

Electricity Board seeking compensation on the ground that the

said Lochana died due to the fall of live electric wire and as

she suffered electric shock. The suit was decreed by the trial

Court and the appellant herein was directed to pay

Rs.2,05,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

suit till realization with a direction for proportionate

distribution of the compensation amount on the first plaintiff, SSRN,J

husband of the deceased and other plaintiffs, who are no

other than her children.

3. According to the brief case of the plaintiffs in the

above suit, it shows that on 13-08-1993, V.Lochana

hereinafter will be referred as deceased was travelling on the

Scooter as a pillion rider with the second plaintiff and the

Scooter was driven by her close relative. While they were on

the way and reached Nacharam Cross Roads, near Rajiv

Nagar, one electric wire snapped all of a sudden and directly

came in contact with the deceased, dragged her from the

Scooter on account of which, she fell down on the ground and

died on the spot. The brother-in-law of the deceased, who

was residing nearby came and tried to remove the wire from

the body of the deceased with the help of a wooden stick.

She was immediately shifted to local Doctor, who pronounced

her brought dead. It seems, a complaint was lodged before

police, Nacharam, and a case in Crime No.92/93 under

Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered. The Medical Officer,

who conducted post-mortem on the dead body opined that

the death was on account of electrocution. The plaintiffs have

filed the suit alleging that the accident occurred on account of SSRN,J

the negligence of the officials of the appellant herein. The

death of the deceased deprived plaintiff No.1 conjugal life and

all the plaintiffs were deprived of love and affection of the

deceased. They have also claimed that she was a Graduate,

she has undergone training as a Beautician and earning

Rs.2,000/- per month, thereby they sought for a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The appellant herein contested the suit, filed

written statement denying that all the material averments of

the plaint including the alleged accident, negligence attributed

to the officials and sought for dismissal of the suit on the

ground that the accident was an 'act of God' and there was no

such negligence of appellants, thereby, they are not liable to

pay any compensation.

5. The trial Court framed four issues. The plaintiffs

have examined three witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A8.

None were examined on behalf of defendant i.e., appellant

herein. The trial Court having accepted the plea of plaintiffs,

decreed the suit in part by directing the defendant to pay

Rs.2,05,000/- as stated above.

SSRN,J

6. The defendant wherein filed the present appeal on

the following grounds :

The judgment and decree passed by the Court below is

an ex parte judgment. Though there is no such mention in

the judgment while explaining their absence before the trial

Court, the appellant has pleaded that there was change in the

Standing Counsel, thereby, they could not represent before

the trial Court but the trial Court ought to have seen that only

a written statement was filed by the appellant herein and it

was not in the knowledge of subsequent Standing Counsel.

The matter went unilateral and as such, an ex parte order was

passed, thereby, it is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable

to be set aside. The appellant has further pleaded that the

version of the Court below that inspite of giving an

opportunity, the defendant did not examine any witness

established the matter went unilateral and there was no

representation on behalf of appellant herein as such, the

judgment cannot stand in the eye of law. They have also

pleaded that the trial Court ought to have issued a notice to

the defendant when there was no representation for them.

SSRN,J

7. The appellant further contended that the trial

Court ought to have seen that if at all the accident took place

as alleged by the plaintiffs, the driver of the Scooter could

also have suffered injury. Therefore, according to the

appellant, there was no such accident and the judgment is

liable to be set aside.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the

appellant.

9. Now the point for consideration in the present

appeal is :

1. Whether the appellant was not given proper opportunity to contest the suit ?

2. Whether the judgment even ex parte judgment, thereby, liable to be set aside as prayed for ?

10. According to the judgment under challenge, it is

quite clear that the suit was filed with a specific allegation

that the deceased suffered electrocution when a live electric

wire snapped and fell on her, dragged her, thereby, she fell

on the ground, suffered electric shock and died on the spot.

It seems a complaint was lodged before police admitting

Ex.A1 certificate issued by S.H.O. Nacharam shows the said

registration of the crime. As per the post-mortem report, it is SSRN,J

quite clear the deceased died due to electrocution. According

to the findings of the trial Court, it shows that the husband of

the deceased was examined as PW.1 and he deposed about

the actual incident and about the death of his wife. The

judgment further shows that PW.1 was examined in chief on

25-01-2000 and the matter was adjourned to 22-02-2000 for

cross-examination. The plaintiffs have examined PW.2 on

10-02-2000 but the defendant i.e., appellant herein did not

choose to cross-examine these two witnesses. The Court

below categorically found that inspite of opportunity given to

the defendant, they did not cross-examine the witnesses

thereby, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 remind unchallenged.

The plaintiffs have produced evidence to believe that prior to

the above referred accident, one live electric wire got snapped

and fell on a buffalo and it died and there was another

incident of snapping of the wire. The evidence of the

witnesses examined for plaintiffs was un-rebutted.

11. The Court below having placed reliance on the

judgment reported in 'M.Bheemavva and Others Vs.

A.P.S.E.B.1' came to the conclusion that there was an

accident in which a live electric wire got snapped and fell on

1998 (1) ALT page No.67 SSRN,J

the deceased causing instantaneous death of the deceased

and incident occurred due to the negligence of the officials of

the appellant herein. Therefore, they are liable to pay

compensation for the loss caused to the plaintiffs. Simply

because there was a change in the Standing Counsel, the

appellant herein cannot escape the liability. Even if there is

such a change, it is for them to give suitable instructions to

the next Standing Counsel and got the cross-examination of

the witnesses done. There is nothing on record to believe

that there was sufficient cause by which the appellant herein

was prevented from cross-examining PWs.1 to 3 and from

producing evidence in support of the plea taken in the written

statement. Absolutely there is no material before the Court to

show some sufficient cause which can prevent the appellant

herein from adducing evidence. Therefore, the grounds taken

by the appellant are not sufficient to reverse the judgment of

the trial Court. The Court below having considered all the

aspects awarded a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- together with costs

and interest. As could be seen from the record, the said

amount was already deposited and respondents/plaintiffs SSRN,J

were permitted to withdraw the said amount. I see no merits

in the appeal, thereby, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

18th July, 2022.

PLV