Telangana High Court
The Superintending Engineer, Medak ... vs Yadagiri Naveen Kumar, Medak Dist on 22 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT No.57 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.04.2016 in O.S.No.6 of 2014
on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at
Medak.
2. The said suit was filed for recovery of
damages/compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the burn injuries
caused to plaintiff due to electric shock. The trial Court vide
impugned judgment dated 25.04.2016 awarded an amount of
Rs.7,21,300/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty One Thousand and
Three Hundred only) to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.10.2013 the
plaintiff - Y.Naveen Kumar, along with some other children went
to play near the fields of M.Lasmaiah. There was a live wire
connecting electric pole which was leaned down on the ground,
covered by the standing crop. When the plaintiff along with three
other friends was playing in the fields, the electric live connector
SKS, J
caught plaintiff and the other children escaped from the
dangerous electric live wire. The other children informed about the
incident to one Nagamani, who immediately ran to the place where
the plaintiff was electrified. She saw that plaintiff was covered by
fumes. The other villagers disconnected the electricity of live wire
and rescued plaintiff. Immediately, the injured plaintiff was shifted
to the Government Area Hospital, Medak, and then to Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad, where the Doctors amputated both the
legs of plaintiff.
4. The contention of plaintiff is that even after repeated
complaints by the landlord M.Laxmaiah and other villagers, the
defendants overhauled the deadly live electric connector and never
responded to the complaints in time and maintained the electric
connections in negligent manner which caused damage to the
innocent child. As such, the defendants are liable to pay the
compensation for the damage caused to plaintiff.
5. The defendants who are appellants herein, filed written
statement denying the plaint averments. The defendants
contended that due to heavy rail and gale on 04.10.2013 the
existing high tension support pole was leaning and due to sinking
of loose soil, the live wire ground clearance became lessened. As
SKS, J
the incident occurred in very interior area, it was not identified
and not reported either by the farmers or by the nearby villagers
and that the plaintiff caught live wire due to his own negligence
and there was no fault in the part of the Department and the
reason for electrocution was heavy rain and gale. It was further
contended that the owner of land M.Laxmaiah never complained to
the authorities about the grievance, as such, the Department is
not responsible for the incident. Therefore, prayed the Court to
dismiss O.P.No.6 of 2014.
6. Basing on the submissions made by either side, the trial
Court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim
compensation from defendants and if so, what
amount?
2. To what relief?"
7. To prove the case, on behalf of plaintiff, PWs.1 to 5 were
examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of
defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were
marked on their behalf.
8. Basing on the material and evidence placed on record, the
trial Court came to the conclusion that defendants are responsible
SKS, J
for the incident, as such, awarded compensation to the plaintiff,
as stated supra.
9. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by defendants
stating that there is no negligence on the part of the Authorities
and the incident occurred due to heavy rain, as a result of which
the soil became loose and the same resulted in bending of the pole
due to which the live wire became loose. Further, the
compensation fixed by the trial Court is excessive and is also not
based on any formula fixed by the Courts.
10. Heard Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for
appellants/defendants, and Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel
for respondent/plaintiff.
11. Learned counsel for appellants/defendants, would submit
that though there is no negligence on the part of the appellants,
the trial Court erroneously fixed the liability on them without
basing any formula and awarded excessive compensation to
respondent/plaintiff. As such, prayed this Court to set aside the
impugned judgement dated 25.04.2016 by allowing the present
appeal.
SKS, J
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff would
submit that there are no infirmities in the impugned judgment and
the trial Court has rightly awarded compensation to
respondent/plaintiff as he lost his both legs and was aged about
12 years at the time of incident. As such, prayed this Court to
dismiss the present appeal.
13. Having regard to the material placed on record, it is noted
that on behalf of plaintiff, PWs.1 to 5 were examined.
PW.1 is the father of the injured. He filed chief affidavit
reiterating the averments of the plaint. In the cross
examination he admitted that since seven days prior to the
incident, there were heavy rains and gale. He also admitted
that he is not witness to the incident and that he has not
reported the matter to the electricity department.
PWs.2 and 3 supported the version of PW.1. PW.2 admitted
in cross examination that at the time of incident there was
heavy rain and gale. PW.3 admitted that since seven to eight
days prior to incident there was heavy rain.
The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 shows that the injured plaintiff
suffered with 99% permanent disability and also underwent
surgery that is right above knee amputation on 15.10.2013
SKS, J
and left below knee amputation on 18.10.2013 and revision
amputation of right above knee debridement on 25.10.2013,
skin grafting on left thigh on 29.10.2013 and skin grafting
right above knee amputation stamp and got discharged on
13.11.2013. During cross examination PW.5 stated that
Exs.4, 5, 8 and 10 are issued by him.
14. On behalf plaintiff, Exs.A1 to A10 were filed.
Ex.A1 - certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.233 of 2013 registered
by the Police, Medak Rural basing on the complaint lodged
by father of the plaintiff.
Ex.A2 - certified copy of the charge sheet.
Ex.A3 - certified copy of the scene of offence panchanama
along with rough sketch conducted by the Police in the
presence of panch witness.
Ex.A4 - medical certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital.
Ex.A5 - discharge summary issued by Gandhi Hospital.
Ex.A6 - medical prescriptions.
Ex.A7 - medical bills.
Ex.A8 - original disability certificate.
Ex.A9 - certified copy of statements recorded under Section
161 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.A10 - photographs along with C.D.
SKS, J
15. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined. DW.1
is working as Assistant Divisional Engineer in Medak-Sub-Division
since three years and DW.2 is Lineman. They deposed that on
entire night of 04.10.2013 there was heavy rain and gale and since
two days prior to the incident, there was continuous rain in the
area of Pathur Village, Shamnapur Village and also the
surrounding villages of Medak Mandal. Due to the said heavy rain,
the existing high tension support pole at Pathur Village in the
fields of M.Laxmaiah was leaning due to sinking loose soil in the
paddy crop, thereby, the live wire ground clearance became
lessened and on 6.10.2013 plaintiff caught the live wire due to his
own negligence and received electric shock.
16. Having regard to the rival submissions made and the
evidence available on record, it is noted that though the
appellants/defendants contended that the incident occurred due
to Act of God because of heavy rains and negligence on part of the
plaintiff, the documents filed under Exs.A1 to A5, coupled with the
evidence of PWs.1 to 5, clearly proves that the incident occurred
due to negligence on part of the appellants/defendants.
SKS, J
17. Further, as per Ex.A8 it is seen that the minor plaintiff who
was aged about 12 years at the time of incident, has sustained
99% permanent disability. As such, prayed before the trial Court
to grant compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. After hearing either side,
the trial Court on considering the fact that plaintiff sustained 99%
permanent disability and was aged 12 years at the time of incident
observed that as per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
the notional income of non-earning person being Rs.15,000/- per
month, fixed the income of plaintiff as Rs.14,850 per month and
applied '15' multiplier as plaintiff was aged below 15 years, which
comes to Rs.2,22,750/-. Thereafter, relying upon the judgement of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another 1,
the trial Court awarded Rs.6,00,000/- towards loss of future
earnings. After considering the amounts under various other
heads, the trial Court awarded Rs.7,21,300/- to the plaintiff.
18. Victim was aged about 12 years on the date of incident. His
both legs were amputed due to electric shock. He has to survive
without both legs and he is dependent upon the parents for
everything. The loss caused to the victim cannot be compensated
with money as it is an irreparable injury.
(2014) 14 SCC 396
SKS, J
19. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that there is no
illegality committed by the trial Court in fixing the liability on
appellants/defendants and awarding compensation of
Rs.7,21,300/- to respondent/plaintiff. As such, there are no
merits in the present appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to the costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
this appeal shall stand closed.
__________________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :22.12.2023
PT
