The Chairman, vs Manupati Balavva
2022 Latest Caselaw 6025 Tel

        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                 APPEAL SUIT No.1345 of 2002

JUDGMENT:

This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment of the trial

Court in O.S.No.08 of 1996 dated 18.12.2001.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit for claiming damages of Rs.1,00,000/-

for the loss of life of their daughter namely Olugathula Laxmi

against the defendants. Plaintiff No.1 is the mother and Plaintiff

No.2 is the husband of the deceased Laxmi, aged 19 years. The

deceased was picking fossils of pigs near mission, compound

area. While so, she came into contact with a live electric wire

lying on the public road and got electrocuted. Immediately, she

was shifted to the hospital of Jagtial, but declared as dead. The

P.S, Jagtial registered a case in Cr.No.18 of 1995 and issued

F.I.R on 25.09.1995. The Police conducted inquest

panchanama, postmortem was also conducted and it was held

that she died due to electrocution. The grievance of plaintiffs is

that there is a grave negligence on the part of the defendants

and improper maintenance of electric supply wires and thus she

contacted with the live electric wire and died on the spot.

3. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in their Written Statement

contended that the plaintiff No.1 is not the legal heir of the

deceased, as such she is not entitled to claim any damages.

Deceased herself is dependent on income of her husband. As

such he cannot claim any damages for the loss of life of his wife.

They also stated that there was no negligence on their part. On

25.01.1995 there was heavy gale and whirl wind in Jagtial town.

As a result, the phase conductor of LR 3 phase 4 wire line on

SS - 32, 100 KVA near Mission compound was snapped and

fell on heap of stones on the road side. The fuse at the

transformer did not blow off due to improper earthing as the

conductor fell on the stones. The deceased instead of walking on

road for picking fossils, she went to the heap of stones and

came into contact with live wire and received electric shock and

died on the spot and thus death occurred due to negligence and

carelessness of the deceased. This snapping of the conductor is

due to heavy gale and whirl wind which is an act of God and not

within the control of the defendants and it is accidental.

Therefore, defendants are not liable to pay compensation.

Defendants also stated that notice under Section 33 of the

Indian Electricity Act is mandatory. It is not issued prior to the

filing of the suit and thus suit itself is not maintainable. A

preliminary report was sent by the ADE/OT/APSEB about the

accident on 25.01.1995 at 6:00 hours. It was received in the

office on 01.03.1995. The said accident was investigated on

28.03.1995 and Rule 5(4) notice was served on 25.04.1995.

4. The trial Court considering evidence and arguments of

both sides held that deceased was aged about 19 years, plaintiff

No.1 was aged 40 years, plaintiff No.2 was aged 25 years. The

annual earnings of the deceased at the time of her death was

Rs.7,200/-. Out of which she may be spending a sum of

Rs.2,400/- per annum on her dependents. The dependency of

the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 on the earnings of the deceased can be

a reasonably assured for about 10 to 15 years only and thus

awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- ( Rs.25,000/- to each of

the plaintiffs) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of

the suit to till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said

order, the Electricity Board preferred an appeal and mainly

contended that there is no negligence on their part. The

accident was occurred only due to heavy gale and whirl wind in

the town of Jagtial on 25.01.1995. But, the trial Court erred in

compensating the liability on the Electricity Board and

requested the Court to set aside the order.

5. The counsel for the appellants contended that the interest

granted upon them is excessive and requested the Court to

grant interest @ 6% per annum as the accident occurred in the

year 1995 as per the prevailing rate of interest at that time.

Whereas, the respondent counsel contended that the deceased

was aged about 19 years at the time of accident. The trial Court

rightly granted the compensation and also interest and it needs

no interference.

6. It is the admitted fact that there was heavy gale on

25.01.1995. But, as far as this case is concerned the deceased

came in contact with a live wire and died due to electrocution

and it is for the Electricity Department to maintain the wires

properly immediately after gale but they failed to do so. The

argument of the counsel for the appellants that she was

negligent in walking on the heap of stones instead walking on

the road is not tenable. Thus, this Court finds no reason to

interfere with the order of the trial Court in granting the

compensation as far as the interest is concerned, there is no

prayer in the appeal of the appellant regarding deduction of the

interest amount as argued by the counsel for the appellants.

Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to

confirm the order of the trial Court.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order

of the trial Court in O.S.No.08 of 1996 dated 18.12.2001.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

                                        _________________________

                                        JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

DATED:       .11.2022

tri





       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA




             APPEAL SUIT No.1345 of 2002




                 DATED:       .11.2022



TRI