The A.P. Transco Rep. By Its vs Smt. Nayeemunissa Begum
2023 Latest Caselaw 3723 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                 APPEAL SUIT No.507 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and decree

dated 05.12.2008 in O.S.No.52 of 2006, on the file of the

learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, wherein the suit filed for

claiming compensation was decreed for a sum of Rs.5,75,000/-.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the

respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.52 of 2006. For

the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred

to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is wife,

plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are parents and plaintiff Nos.2 and 5 are

children of Shaik Wajid (hereinafter referred to as 'the

deceased'), who was aged about 24 years and working as an

Auto Driver and earning a sum of Rs.500/- per day. On

03.03.2006, the deceased went to Suddlam Village and while he

was returning back, his auto could not restarted due to some

trouble, thereby, he left his auto at Suddlam village and took

the motor cycle of his friend. While crossing the village on a

motor cycle of his friend, a live electric wire fell on him, as a

result thereof, he sustained electrical burns and died on the

spot. Later, a case was registered in Crime No.34 of 2006.

Further, the plaintiffs approached the Transco Authorities

seeking for ex gratia and compensation at several instances,

however, they protracted the matter on one pretext or the other.

As such, the plaintiffs got issued legal notice on 11.04.2006 and

in spite of receipt of legal notice, they did not choose to give any

reply. Aggrieved over the same, the suit vide O.S.No.57 of 2006

has been filed claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- in lump

sum.

4. Defendant No.3 was set ex-parte before the trial Court. In

a written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2, they denied

the averments in the plaint and contended that there is no

negligence or carelessness on the part of the defendants and

that the officers of the Department has been repairing the

defects immediately. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for

any compensation and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

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

the following issues:

"1.Whether the defendants are negligent in maintaining the electrical wiring at the scene of offence?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages?

3. To what relief?"

6. To support their case, the plaintiffs have got examined

PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked and the defendants

have got examined DW.1 and marked Ex.B1 - accident report.

Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR. Ex.A2 is attested copy of inquest

panchanama, dated 04.03.2006. Ex.A3 is copy of legal notice,

dated 11.04.2006. Ex.A4 is the original death certificate of

Shaik Wajeed, dated 06.03.2006. Ex.A5 is the certificate of

postal acknowledgment. Ex.A6 is photograph of the deceased

dead body along with negative and Ex.A7 is the driving license.

7. The Trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record,

decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- with proportionate

costs towards damages along with interest at the rate of 6% per

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

realization. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been

preferred by the defendants.

8. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the

material placed on record.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants contended

that the accident occurred due to heavy rain and lightening and

that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants and

the trial Court has grossly erred in holding that the defendants

failed in maintaining the electrical wire at the place of incident.

The specific contention of the learned counsel for the

defendants is that on the date of incident, there was heavy rain,

due to which thunderbolt and lightening fell on the electric wire

which resulted into wire cut and fell on the deceased. Therefore,

there is no negligence on the part of the defendants and it is vis

major (act of God). Thus, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any

compensation.

10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the

deceased was travelling on the motor cycle of his friend and not

along with his friend and as such, the question of examining his

friend does not arise. Admittedly, the deceased died due to

electrocution, even as per the inquest report and post-mortem

report and as such, the defendants cannot be exempted from

their liability. Though the post-mortem report is filed, it was not

marked. Recording the conclusion, the defendants contended

that the age of the deceased was wrongly shown as 29 years

without any piece of paper. However, the trial Court held that

the age of the deceased is 29 years as per the post-mortem

report and considered the income of the deceased at Rs.125/-

per day i.e., Rs.3,750/- per month and Rs.45,000/- per annum,

which requires no interference by this Court.

11. After considering the evidence available on record, the

trial Court has rightly granted the compensation of

Rs.5,75,000/- with proportionate costs towards damages and

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

the suit till realization.

12. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed by confirming

the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2008 in O.S.No.52 of

2006, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

Further, the defendants/appellants herein are directed to

deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the

date of this judgment. On such deposit, plaintiff Nos.3 and

4/respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, who are parents of the

deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and

plaintiff Nos.2 and 5/respondent Nos.2 and 5, who are children

of the deceased, are entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and

plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein, who is the wife of the

deceased, is entitled for the remaining amount along with

interest accrued on it. However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

DATE: 08.11.2023 PNS

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

APPEAL SUIT No.507 of 2009

DATE: 08.11.2023

PNS