Telangana High Court

The Northern Power Distribution ... vs Smt. Banovath Shonda on 3 November, 2023

Bench: P.Sree Sudha

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                APPEAL SUIT No.191 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and decree

dated 07.03.2007 in O.S.No.12 of 2004, passed by the learned

District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. The suit vide O.S.No.12 of 2004 was filed by the legal

heirs of the deceased Banovath Hanmandloo, who died due to

electrocution, claiming damages of Rs.11,05,000/- from the

appellants/defendants. The trial Court got examined P.Ws.1

and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 on behalf of the plaintiffs and

also examined D.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the defendants. The

trial Court considering the arguments of both sides and

evidence on record, partly decreed the suit and granted

compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- towards damages to the

respondents/plaintiffs with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of suit till realization and the suit against respondent

No.5/defendant No.5 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said

Judgment, defendants No.1 to 4 therein i.e, Electricity

department preferred the present appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants

mainly contended that it is for the respondents/plaintiffs to

prove that accident was occurred only due to negligence of the

appellants herein. As they installed guy insulator to the

supporting wire, there is no negligence on their part. As per the

evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants, the supporting

wire of the poll No.37/A/6 was with guy insulator and the

question of passing electricity through the said support wire

does not arise and the entire line system was properly

maintained without causing any inconvenience. Therefore,

requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial

Court.

4. The parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and

defendants as arrayed in the trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

5. Plaintiffs in the suit stated that the deceased Banovath

Hanmandloo was cultivating the land of Talari Ramulu and

others on lease. On 11.10.2001 at about 2 P.M., while he was

going to the said leased lands, came in contact with the support

wire of the electric pole bearing No.37/A/6 and received electric

shock and died on the spot and the police registered a case in

Cr.No.67 of 2001 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and held inquest

over the dead body of the deceased. As per the Postmortem

examination report, the cause of death was due to electric

shock. As on the date of incident, the deceased was aged about

35 years and he was earning Rs.50,000/- per annum from

agriculture and Rs.3,000/- per month on milk business. The

plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiff No.2 is the aged mother and

plaintiffs No.3 & 4 are the minor children of the deceased. The

electric pole supporting wire belonging to the defendants No.1 to

4 left without maintenance, supervision and checking to prevent

unfortunate events like death of the deceased and the staff of

defendants No.1 to 4 were negligent in discharging their duties,

as such they are liable to pay compensation. Plaintiffs got

issued legal notice on 28.11.2001 and the same was received by

defendant No.1 on 29.11.2001, but they did not give any reply.

6. The defendant No.1 in his written statement stated that

the entire line system of 100 KVA Transformer (SS-37) of

Jakranpally distribution was proper, intact and the supporting

wire of particular pole No.37/A/6 was with guy insulator

erected by them and it was intact, as such the question of

passing of electric supply from the said wire to the pole does not

arise. He also stated that electrical pole No.37/A/6 was located

in the land of Mallu Ramulu and not in the land of Talari

Ramulu and their department has no information about the

said incident. The entire registration of the case, postmortem

examination and other aspects were done behind the back of

the departmental staff with an ill intention to extract money

illegally. They came to know that while deceased was going

through the said land, came in contact with illegal connection

taken and connected in the land and died on the spot. By

suppressing the said facts and by removing the material and

other evidences from the spot, plaintiffs created false story and

filed the suit and also stated that there was no negligence in

discharging their duties.

7. D.W.1 in his Cross-examination stated that the concerned

lineman and line inspector will look after the maintenance of the

said pole and nearby poles and he will inspect whenever there is

major problem. The lineman will submit records to their office

regarding the maintenance of poles and yearly four times their

lineman and inspectors shall inspect the lines as per their rules,

but they are not maintaining any record regarding the said

inspection and he has no record to show that guy insulator was

fixed to the support wire. He also admitted that it is their duty

to see that electrical installations are properly maintained and

to see that there shall not be any electricity leakage anywhere

causing damage to the property and lives of the people and he

denied their negligence regarding the incident.

8. D.W.2 in his evidence stated that on enquiry he came to

know that while deceased was going through the land of one

Mallaiah, he came in contact with the illegal connection taken

and connected in the said land and died on the spot and no

intimation was given to them on the date of incident or at any

time subsequently and their staff never visited the alleged scene

of incident. The trial Court considering the evidence on record

held that there was negligence on the part of Electricity

department and they did not take proper care for maintenance

of electric pole in the village of Jakranpally Thanda and there

was no contributory negligence on the part of deceased and

accordingly granted compensation by taking his income as

Rs.1,500/- per month and age as 35 years as mentioned in the

postmortem examination report.

9. Admittedly, the deceased died due to electrocution as per

the postmortem examination report. Plaintiffs stated that

deceased was cultivating the lands of Talari Ramulu on lease.

When he went into the said lands, he came in contact with the

electric wire and died on the spot. Whereas, defendants stated

that the said pole was located in the land of Mallu Ramulu, but

not in the land of Talari Ramulu and the support wire of the

pole was with guy insulator, as such the question of passing

electricity through the said pole does not arise. In fact, Mallu

Ramulu took illegal connection from the said electric pole by

placing hooks and the deceased came in contact with the said

illegal connection and died on the spot, but the same was

suppressed. Plaintiffs stated that in spite of receiving legal

notice, defendants have not given any reply, but the defendants

stated that plaintiffs never informed about the incident at any

point of time. The appellant/defendants mainly contended that

there is no negligence on their part, as such they are not liable

to pay any compensation.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity

Board Vs. Shail Kumari and others, 1 clearly held that

Electricity Board is liable to pay compensation irrespective of

any negligence or carelessness on their part when a person died

due to contact with live electric wire and it reads as follows:

(2002) 2 SCC 162

"It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the suffer is that of the supplier of the electric energy."

Therefore, the argument of the appellants that there is no

negligence on their part is not accepted. The trial Court

discussed all the points at length and rightly arrived to the

conclusion and granted reasonable compensation of

Rs.4,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

filing the suit till realization and this Court finds no reason to

interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court.

11. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed, confirming the

Judgment and decree dated 07.03.2007 in O.S.No.12 of 2004

passed by the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.