The Central Power Distribution ... vs Nafees Sultana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1742 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                        A.S.No.838 OF 2008

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree

dated 09.04.2007 in O.S.No.83 of 2002, on the file of the learned XVII

Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad whereby the suit seeking compensation for the

death of one Mohd.Khaled Hussain Siddiqui, husband of plaintiff

No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 & 3, was partly decreed awarding

compensation of Rs.3,55,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation.

2. The appellants herein are the defendant No. 1, the Central

Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (Presently,

Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited), represented by its

Chairman, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and defendant

No. 2, the Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

Limited (Presently, Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited),

represented by its Assistant Engineer, Division No. 12, Santoshnagar,

Hyderabad and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs in

the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are

referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

MGP,J AS_838_2008

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Mohd. Khaled Hussain

Siddiqui died on 03.10.1998 at about 07:00 p.m., due to

electrocution, at Fatehshah Nagar. According to the plaintiffs, on the

fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding from Hafezbaba

nagar, Jamal colony towards Fatehshah Nagar and when he reached

Bandh Naaka, he was electricuted due to the snapping of live

electrical III phase. Thus, it is the claim of the plaintiffs that only due

to negligence of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, snapping of live electrical

III phase wire in view of the negligence of the staff of the defendants,

the deceased came in contact with the wire and died on the spot.

Had the employees of defendant Nos.1 and 2 taken due care and

caution while maintaining the electricity lines, the deceased would

not have died due to electrocution. According to the plaintiffs, the

deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing embroidery

work and used to contribute his entire earnings for the welfare of the

family. Due to his sudden death, the plaintiffs are put to hardship

and mental agony, for which, they claimed compensation of

Rs.5,25,000/- from defendant Nos.1 and 2.

4. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed written statement denying the

averments of the plaintiffs. It is their case that the incident had

happened only due to the sudden heavy gale and wind in and

around Fatesha Nagar, wherein live III phase electrical wire was

MGP,J AS_838_2008 snapped and fallen beside. As a result, the deceased came in contact

with the said fallen wire and died on spot due to electric shock. It is

further contended that the Defendants Corporation has been

maintaining the electricity lines with all precautions in order to

supply un-interrupted power to the public by way of inspecting

periodically and as such, there is no negligence on the part of the

defendants in maintaining the electric lines. It is lastly contended

that the accident occurred only due to the act of the mis-major and

is beyond control of Defendants-Corporation and prayed to dismiss

the suit.

5. Based on the above pleading, the trial Court has framed the

following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount?

2. To what relief?

6. The plaintiffs, to support their case, have examined PWs.1 & 2

and marked Exs.A1 to A5. The defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have not

adduced either oral or documentary evidence. The Court below on

appreciating the evidence on record has partly decreed the suit as

indicated above.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

MGP,J AS_838_2008 appellants/defendant Nos. 1 & 2 is that the accident occurred only

mis-major i.e., an act of god and that there was a heavy gale and

wind, due to which, the electric wires snapped. As such, there is no

negligence on the part of defendant Nos.1 & 2, Electricity

Department. However, the trial Court has erred in fastening liability

without there being any independent evidence. Therefore, the

appellant herein is not liable to pay the compensation.

8. The plaintiffs in support of their pleadings, marked Exs.A.2,

inquest report, A.3, Post Mortem Examination report. The plaintiffs

have also examined an independent witness as P.W.2, who deposed

that the deceased died due to the electric shock after getting into

contact with the live electric wire which was snapped and fell down.

Though P.Ws.1 & 2 were cross-examined at length in this regard, no

contra evidence was elicited Though the defendants have not

disputed the death of deceased due to electrocution, defendants have

not let any evidence to prove their case. Considering the evidence

brought on record, the trial Court held that both the defendants are

equally responsible for the death of the deceased and therefore, both

of them liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, I do not find any

reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Judge.

9. As regards the quantum of compensation, P.W.1, the wife of

deceased, has deposed that the deceased used to do embroidery

MGP,J AS_838_2008 work and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month. However, as the

incident occurred during the year 1998, the trial Court has

reasonably taken the income of the deceased to Rs.2,400/- per

month and the same is not disturbed herewith. Since the deceased

was 35 years old at the time of the death, in view of the decision of

the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others1, 40% towards future prospects can duly

be added to the established income of the deceased. Thus, the future

monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,360/- (Rs.2,400/- +

Rs.960/-). Since the dependents are three in number, after

deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the

deceased, the net monthly contribution to the family comes to

Rs.2,240/- and as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma

v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, the appropriate

multiplier is '16' as the deceased was 35 years old at the time of the

accident. Thus, applying the multiplier '16', the total loss of

dependency comes to Rs.4,30,080/- (Rs.2,240 x 12 x 16). That

apart, the other amounts awarded by the trial Court i.e.,

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.28,000/- towards loss of

love and affection, estate, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead

body and funeral expenses, are reasonable and needs no interference

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 (6) SCC 121

MGP,J AS_838_2008 by this Court. Thus, in all, the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.4,78,080/-

10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in view of the

foregoing observations of this Court, the compensation amount

awarded by the trial Court is enhanced from Rs.3,55,200/- to

Rs.4,78,080/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing

of suit till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be

apportioned between the plaintiffs in the same proportion in which

original compensation amounts were directed by the trial Court. The

defendant Nos.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the entire compensation

amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy

of this judgment. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 24.04.2023 gms

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

APPEAL SUIT No.838 of 2008

DATE: 24.04.2023

gms