Saraswathi Madhava Krishnam Raju vs The Chairman Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 6052 Tel

      THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT P.SREE SUDHA

              APPEAL SUIT No.642 OF 2006


JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

05.08.2005 in O.S.No.34 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

2. The suit is filed by the wife and daughters of Vasudeva

Raju, who died due to electrocution on 24.02.1999 at 6-40p.m

within the premises of 33 KV sub-station during the course of

employment.

3. Plaintiff stated that there was power breakdown due to

failure of fuse at sub-station and Vasudeva Raju in order to

restore the fuse climbed the pole and came in contact with live

current power line and died on the spot due to electric shock.

Police Nereducherla registered a case in Crime No.11 of 1999

under Section 174 Cr.P.C and issued First Investigation Report.

Police also conducted Panchanama and dead body was sent to

the Government hospital for post-mortem. Doctor opined that

the death of deceased is due to electric shock. Wife of deceased

was examined as PW1 and she examined PW2 on her behalf.

She also filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A13. ADE of AP Transco was

examined as DW1. Line inspector was examined as DW2 and

lineman was examined as DW3. Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 are marked on

behalf of the defendants.

4. Plaintiff filed suit against the electricity department

officials D1 to D4 and also the contractor D5. In spite of service

of notice, D5 remained ex-parte. There is no dispute regarding

the fact that Vasudeva Raju died due to electrocution and also

there is no dispute that plaintiffs are LR's of the deceased

Vasudeva Raju. The issue before the Trial Court was whether

Vasudeva Raju was engaged by the contractor-D5 or not. It is

also not in dispute that D5 is a contractor and he was allotted

to manage and maintain 33/11 KV Sub-station at Gaddipally of

Garidepally Mandal.

5. PW1 stated that her husband was aged 30 years and

studied up to Intermediate and obtained Central training in the

field of electrician especially winding of electrical motors and

also Proprietor of electrical shop namely SRINIVASA

ELECTRICAL SHOP at Gaddipally. D5 lured her husband to

join the sub-station stating that he will get permanent

employment in A.P.S.E.B and her husband agreed to work in

the sub-station and he was paying Rs.1500/- per month. Apart

from that her husband was also attending motor repair work

and getting Rs.3000/- per month.

6. As D5 failed to take safety measures, D1 to D5 are jointly

responsible to pay the damages. She also examined PW2 and

stated that Vasudeva Raju was working as a contract labour in

substation at Gadepalli. There was power breakdown due to

failure of the fuse of and Vasudeva Raju climbed the pole came

in contact with power line and died on the spot. He also stated

that deceased was getting a salary of Rs.1500/- from D5 and he

died during the course of employment.

7. DW1 stated that he obtained the bio-data of D5 and also

bio-data of B.Ramdas, R.Srinivas Goud and P.Srinivas Raju who

worked in the office of D5 as the name of the deceased

Vasudeva Raju was not mentioned in the said particulars, he

was never employed by D5 and thus the question of payment of

compensation to the plaintiffs does not arise and they are not

liable to pay the compensation. He filed the applications of the

above three persons and also Ex.B5 to Ex.B7 to show that

defendant No.5 was allotted with the maintenance of KV Sub-

station. DW1, DW2 and DW3 stated that Vasudeva Raju

trespassed into the sub-station and died due to electrocution

and he was not an employee of D5 Parvathalu.

8. Admittedly, DW1 has not filed any register maintained by

the contractor D5 either regarding payment of wages or

regarding attendance of the workers employed by him i.e.

attendance register or salary disbursement register maintained

in regular course of time to ascertain whether Vasudeva Raju

was engaged by him or not. The mere applications filed under

Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are of no use to disprove the fact that Vasudeva

Raju was engaged by the contractor, they have not examined

the contractor for the reasons best known to them. When they

are clearly disputing the employment of the deceased with the

m, no doubt it is for the plaintiffs to prove that Vasudev Raju

working with D5, plaintiff is the housewife of the deceased. She

clearly stated that her husband was working with D5 and she

also examined PW2 who supported her version.

9. Now the burden shifts upon the respondents to

disprove her version, as they did not examine D5 or filed

any relevant registers before the Court. They failed to

discharge their burden, but simply contended that

Vasudeva Raju is not their employee and he trespassed

into the premises as such there is no negligence on their

part and they are not liable to pay the damages.

In the beneficial legislations, the Courts are always inclined

to take a lenient view in favour of the claimants. The

counsel of the appellants relied upon the citation reported

in Electricity Board Vs. Siripurapu Vijaya1 in which it

was held as follows:

There is a scuttled distinction in regard to fixing the liabilities one for the purpose of service conditions and another for the purpose of fixing the liability for compensation that has to be awarded as a result of an accident as a fatal otherwise. The principles applicable in case of deciding the service conditions cannot be made applicable for fixing the liability in respect of compensation. The claimants in such cases have no concern nor any say in regard o service conditions as applicable between the employees or their appointing authorities. In regard to the fixation of liability for the compensation, the question which has to be seen is as to the immediate liability for payment.

10. The case before the Trial Court is not that, while he

was passing through the road accidentally, he touched the

electrical pole and died due to electrocution. In this case

Vasudeva Raju went into the substation and made an effort

to rectify the failure of the fuse at substation, climbed the

pole for restoring the fuse came in contact with current

power line and died on the spot. Until and unless he was

not an employee engaged by D5, the question of Vasudeva

2004 (1) LLJ 973

Raju climbing on the pole for restoration of the power does

not arise. But, D2 and D3 supported the version of D1 and

all of them came up with different version and denied the

employment of Vasudev Raju with the contractor only to

avoid the liability and to pay the compensation without any

relevant documents. Therefore, this Court finds that the

Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts properly and

dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff failed to

prove that deceased was engaged by D5.

11. Plaintiffs claimed Rs.7,80,000/- towards loss of

death. They stated that deceased was aged 30 years and he

was paid Rs.1500/- per month by D5 and they also stated

that he was doing motor repair work and getting an income

of Rs.3,000/- per month and also having a shop, but not

filed any evidence to prove the income of Rs.3,000/- per

month. Therefore, this Court feels that it is just and

reasonable to calculate the income of deceased as

Rs.1500/- per month x 12 x 18 i.e. Rs.3,24,000/-. 1/3rd is

to be deducted towards family compensation i.e.

Rs.1,08,000/- and the balance amount comes to

Rs.2,16,000/-.

12. Petitioners are also entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards

pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate,

Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for

funeral expenses and total compensation comes to

Rs.2,86,000/-.

13. D5 was engaged by D1 to D4 as a contractor to

maintain their substation. D1 to D5 are jointly and

severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,86,000/-

with interest @7.5% from the date of filing the suit till the

date of realization. Defendants are directed to pay the

amount within 2 months from the date of this order.

Petitioner No.1 was aged 3 years in the year 2001 and by

this time, as the appeal is disposed of in the year 2022, she

has attained the age of maturity and declared as major and

discharged from the guardianship, 2nd plaintiff was mother

of the 1st plaintiff, both of them are equally entitled for the

said compensation amount and they are permitted to

withdraw the entire amount on such deposited.

14. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside

the judgment of the Trial Court. Defendants are directed to

deposit of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest @7.5% per month

from the date of application till the date of realization. They

are directed to pay an amount within 2 months from the

date of this order on such deposit, plaintiffs are permitted

to withdraw the same equally.

15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE SMT P.SREE SUDHA Date: 22.11.2022.

sus