The Ap Transco, Now Apnpdcl Rep. By vs Ambati Laxman,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3587 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                 APPEAL SUIT No.919 of 2010

JUDGMENT:

This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and decree

dated 14.10.2009 in O.S.No.36 of 2007, passed by the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad District.

2. It is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the

respondents/plaintiffs are the parents and younger brother of

Ambati Saikumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who

was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and he was

working as a contract labour for harvesting the sugarcane and

earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. On 23.09.2006 at

about 1.00 p.m. the deceased while proceeding towards the

bullock cart for loading the green grass in a cart, he met with an

accident due to electrocution and died on the spot. Later, a case

was registered in Crime No.150 of 2006 under Section 174 of

Cr.P.C. Autopsy was conducted over the dead body of the

deceased and issued post-mortem certificate, wherein it

discloses that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to

electric injuries. Thereupon, the respondents/plaintiffs got

issued legal notice to the appellants/defendants claiming

compensation but they did not choose to pay the compensation.

Aggrieved over the same, the respondents/plaintiffs filed suit

vide O.S.No.36 of 2007 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-

with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of

filing of the suit till the date of realization of the entire amount.

3. In a written statement filed by the appellants/defendants,

they denied the negligence on their part and further stated that

the deceased while crossing SS-59 transformer plinth, he was

carrying wet grass bundle on his head which touched 11KV

bushings of 25 KVA DTR thereby, the deceased got electric

shock and died on the spot.

4. The parties herein will be referred as plaintiffs and

defendants as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the

sake of convenience.

5. To support their case, the plaintiffs got examined PWs.1

to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A9 and defendants got examined

DW.1 and no exhibits were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR in

Crime No.150 of 2006. Exs.A2 to A4 are the copies of inquest

panchanama, postmortem examination report and death

certificate. Ex.A5 is the dependent certificate issued by the

MRO. Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice. Ex.A7 is postal

receipt. Ex.A8 is photo and Ex.A9 is negative.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants contended

that the father of the deceased clearly admitted that his son was

carrying wet grass bundle and came in contact with 11

K.V.Bushings of 25 K.V.A. DTR. As such, there is no negligence

on the part of the defendants. It was also elicited from DW.1

that there was rain prior to the incident and there was a foot-

way beside the transformer, which is dangerous as there is no

fencing around it. He further stated that electricity poles are

standing in the agricultural fields and the defendants never

visited the transformer at any point of time. It is further stated

that the lands situated around the transformer was converted

into the agricultural fields by the concerned owners and they

did not take any steps against the owners for converting the

lands as agricultural fields and therefore, the defendants are

not liable to pay the compensation.

7. After considering the evidence available on record, the

trial Court has held that there was negligence on the part of the

defendants as they failed to take precautions in maintaining the

transformer and also observed that the accident was occurred

due to the negligence on the part of the defendants in

maintaining the transformer and live wires.

8. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 20 years at the

time of accident and his parents and younger brother were

shown as dependants on him. Though it is stated that the

deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, no

document is filed to prove the same. As such, the trial Court

has taken the amount of Rs.15,000/- as notional income and

granted compensation of Rs.1,71,424/- with interest at the rate

of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date

of decree and the plaintiffs are entitled for the decreetal amount

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

decree till realization of entire decreetal amount.

9. Learned counsel for the defendants contended that the

interest granted by the trial Court at the rate of 18% per annum

is excessive and exorbitant.

10. As the suit is filed for compensation, this Court finds it

reasonable to modify the rate of interest at the rate of 7.5% per

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

realization.

11. The defendants are directed to deposit the entire amount

within a period of one (01) month from the date of this judgment

and on such deposit made by the defendants, plaintiff Nos.1

and 2 viz., parents of the deceased are permitted to withdraw

the entire amount in equal apportionment. Plaintiff No.3 is a

minor son of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and he is only the dependent

of his parents and not on the deceased. As such, he is not

entitled for any compensation and therefore, the claim of the

plaintiff No.3 is dismissed.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Appeal Suit is

allowed-in-part, modifying the rate of interest from 18% per

annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till

the date of realization. However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 06.11.2023 PNS