Telangana High Court
The Chairman vs Madhavarapu Venkat Rao on 30 June, 2022
Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
A.S.NO.1295 OF 2002
JUDGMENT
The plaint averments in brief are that the plaintiffs are the
parents of the deceased Gangadhar Rao, and the deceased was
working as cleaner in the lorry bearing No. AP -31-T-2601 an earning
an amount of Rs.1,200/- per month and Rs.10/- per day as batta
during the journey on the lorry. On 6.7.1995 at about 5.30 p.m. due
to heavy rain and wind, the electrical conductor wire nearby the
electric pole at Ramson Filling Station was snapped, and there was
power supply in the snapped wire. No one from the department tried
to attend on it, and in the meanwhile, the lorry in which the deceased
was working, stopped near the bunk for diesel, and when the
deceased got down from the lorry, and was proceeding towards the
bunk with a tin, and that when he reached in front of the bunk, came
into contact with the snapped power wire lying on the floor and was
electrocuted and died instantaneously. With these averments, they
sought for compensation.
2. The defendants in their written statement admitted that the
death was due to electrocution, but denied the liability, on the ground
that it was a act of God and that there is no negligence on their part in
maintaining the power lines, and also denied the income of the
deceased.
3. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the
following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages of
Rs.2,00,000/-?
2. To what relief
4. In support of the case of the plaintiffs P.Ws.1 to 3 were
examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the
defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and no documents were
marked.
5. The trial court considering the material evidence available on
record, held that the appellants herein who are the defendants in the
claim petition, did not take minimum care of checking the power lines
after the stoppage of rain and wind on that day, and hence they are
liable to pay compensation for untimely death of the deceased.
6. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month,
as he was working as cleaner, and deducting 1/3rd towards personal
expenses and by applying the multiplier of 11.30, based on the age of
the mother of the deceased, the trial court awarded an amount of
Rs.1,09,248/- towards loss of earnings of the deceased. The trial
court also awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and
suffering, and thus in all awarded an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 16.08.1996, on which date
the demand notice was issued under Ex.A-1, till the date of payment.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial
court the defendants have preferred this appeal.
8. Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the appellants / defendants, argued on various grounds disputing the
liability, and also the rate of interest. He submitted that this court
may consider for reducing the rate of interest.
9. Heard Sri K.L.N.Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/claimants, who, while supporting the impugned
judgment, sought to dismiss the appeal.
10. Now the point that arises for my consideration is, 'whether
the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court warrants any
interference?'
11. As per the case of the plaintiffs, their son died due to
electrocution because of the negligence of the defendants. Though the
defendants have denied the same, except the oral evidence, no
documentary evidence was lead on their behalf. The plaintiffs, to
prove their claim, apart from leading oral evidence, have also filed
documentary evidence. The trial court considering the same, recorded
finding of fact that the son of the plaintiffs/respondents died due to
electrocution, as the defendants failed to take minimum care of
checking the power lines after stoppage of rain and wind on that
particular day. This finding of fact recorded by the trial court based
on evidence, warrants no interference.
12. It is to be seen that because of the negligence on the part of
the appellants / defendants, the son of the claimants, who was
unmarried, met untimely death and though the claimants claimed an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, the trial court, as stated above, awarded
only an only an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of demand on 16.08.1996 till the date of
payment.
13. This court on 01.08.2002 granted conditional stay subject
to appellants depositing half of the decretal amount with interest up to
the date of filing of the appeal, and also costs. It is stated by the
learned counsel for the appellants / defendants that the interim order
of this court has been complied with.
14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the considered view, that interest awarded by the trial court
warrants no interference, as the trial court awarded only an amount of
Rs.1,35,000/- for the untimely death of an young man, which is a
meager amount. The appeal is devoid of any merits and substance,
and hence the same is accordingly dismissed.
15. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
-------------------------------------------
M.G.PRIYADRSINI,J
DATE: 30--06--2022
AVS
