The Chairman And Managing ... vs Burri Ramanarsamma And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3637 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

               APPEAL SUIT No.1080 of 2017
JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 22.03.2016

passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T (Additional District Judge)

(Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act cases), Nalgonda in

O.S.No.14 of 2011, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants-Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company

Limited, Nalgonda, as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2

submits that the trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.12,49,038/-

(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand and Thirty Eight

Rupees only) towards damages to the respondents/plaintiffs

payable by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 with interest @

6% per annum. The trial Court passed the judgment and decree

contrary to law, against the evidence on record and the learned

trial Judge failed to take into consideration that there is no

negligence on the part of the appellants. The trial Court

erroneously fixed the liability of the appellants and failed to

observe that the accident occurred due to the negligence of

respondent No.5 herein. The deceased was only a Junior Line

SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017

Man working under a contract and the trial Court should fixed the

liability on the Contractor. The trial Court failed to give credit of

Rs.3,75,000/- which was paid by the appellants' company to M/s

Yashodha Multi Specialty Hospital. They also contended that the

provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act do not apply to the

compensation fixed for the death of a person due to electrocution

and the trial Court granted huge compensation of Rs.12,49,038/-

without any evidence being produced by the respondents/plaintiffs

in respect of the income of the deceased employee. As such, the

same is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2

further submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the

appellants and the trial Court wrongly fixed the liability on the

appellants and failed to observe that the incident occurred due to

the negligence of the deceased himself and the compensation

awarded is highly exorbitant. As such, he prayed the Court to

allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/plaintiffs would submit that there are no infirmities

in the judgment passed by the trial Court. The trial Court rightly

awarded the damages, in fact, which are not sufficient to meet the

loss caused to the respondents. Therefore, he prayed the Court to

dismiss the appeal.

SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017

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

referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as mentioned in the trial

Court.

7. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein

filed the suit vide O.S.No.14 of 2011 claiming damages of

Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of Burri Veera Mallaiah

(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). Plaintiff No.1 is the wife

and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are children of the deceased. The deceased

used to work as a Line Man in A.P.C.P.D.C.L. On 14.07.2010 while

the deceased took work in Electricity Office, Munagala for repair of

lift line of Ghanapavaram Village and at about 4:30 P.M., when he

was attending the repair on electric pole, the electricity worker of

Munagala Sub-Station connected the electricity supply to

Ghanapavaram village lift line negligently, as such, the deceased

met with electric shock and sustained burnt injuries to his left

thigh and right hand. Immediately, he was shifted to Yashodha

Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, for treatment and he succumbed

to the burnt injuries on 18.07.2010. Plaintiff No.1 spent

Rs.10,00,000/- for treatment. On the complaint of Plaintiff

No.1,wife of the deceased, the Police, Munagala Police Station,

registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2010 under Section 304-A

I.P.C. The plaintiffs asserted that the deceased was aged about 50

years, working as Assistant Lineman in defendants' Corporation

SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017

and he was drawing Rs.13,365/- per month. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4

are school going children. Plaintiff No.1 lost consortium and her

children lost the love and affection of their father and their

marriages have to be performed. Therefore, she filed the suit

claiming damages to a tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.

8. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written

statement denying the allegations while admitting that the

deceased was working as Assistant Line Man in defendants'

Department. The deceased was working in the capacity of Junior

Line Man but not the Assistant Lineman and admitted that the

deceased met with electrocution while repairing on the pole and

the incident of electrocution of the deceased was an unforeseen

and untoward incident and immediately he was shifted to the

hospital for treatment. The entire amounts incurred towards

treatment of the deceased were borne by defendant Nos.1 and 2

only by paying an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- directly to the hospital

and the allegation of spending Rs.10,00,000/- by plaintiff No.1 is

incorrect.

9. Defendant No.3 filed written statement admitting that the

deceased died due to electrocution and the entire expenditure was

borne by the Electricity Department and the Department has

assured to give suitable job to the wife of the deceased and prayed

the Court to dismiss the suit.

SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017

10. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 herself was

examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of

the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-9

marked. Basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court awarded

damages as stated supra.

11. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment of

the trial Court needs any interference?

12. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that

there is no negligence on the part of the Corporation and the

accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself.

13. To prove their case, Plaintiff No.1 herself examined as P.W.1

and documents under Exs.A-1 to A-3 are marked. Ex.A-1 is the

certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.106 of 2010

of Munagala Police Station. It is evident that due to electrocution

only the deceased died. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the Inquest

Report shows that the deceased died due to electric shock. Ex.A-3

is the certified copy of the Post Mortem Examination Report.

According to the Post Mortem Examination Report, the cause of

death is septic shock as a result of burns. Ex.A-4 is the charge

sheet, which is filed after due investigation, stating that there is

negligence on the part of defendant No.3 and documents filed

under Exs.A-1 to A-4 proves the negligence on the part of the

SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017

Corporation. Therefore, there are no merits in the contention of

the appellants that the deceased died due to his negligence and the

deceased received electric shock due to his own negligence.

Further, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants is

that the damages awarded by the trial Court are exorbitant and

Motor Vehicles Act accident is not applicable to this case.

14. The defendants before the trial Court have examined D.Ws.1

to 4 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-9. Their evidence is no way

helpful to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence of

the deceased himself.

15. With regard to the damages, the trial Court basing on

Ex.A-5-Salary Certificate fixed the gross salary of the deceased as

Rs.13,365/- as on the date of incident and there are four

dependents on the earnings of the deceased. As such 1/4th of the

salary was deducted for his personal and living expenses and

remaining salary Rs.10,024/- was multiplied with the multiplier '8'

as the deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of death,

as per the judgment of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another 1. Hence, the loss of dependency was

assessed as Rs.9,62,304/- and an amount of Rs.2,76,734/- also

awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- is awarded as

1 2009 ACJ 1298

SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017

consortium and Rs.5,000/- also awarded towards loss of estate

and total amount comes to Rs.12,49,038 /-.

16. Further, the trial Court also noticed that an amount of

Rs.3,75,000/- was paid by the Corporation towards medical

treatment. Whereas, as per Ex.B-8, the Corporation paid an

amount of Rs.98,266/- out of Rs.3,75,000/-, as such the

remaining amount of Rs.2,76,734/- is awarded under the head of

medical expenses.

17. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial

Court. There are no merits in the appeal and the Appeal Suit is

accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 22.03.2016

passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T (Additional District Judge)

(Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act cases), Nalgonda in

O.S.No.14 of 2011. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

______________ K.SUJANA, J

DATE: 07.11.2023 SAI

SKS,J A.S.No.1080 of 2017

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

APPEAL SUIT No.1080 of 2017

Date: 07.11.2023 SAI