The Ap Transco vs Dayyala Pedda Pochaiah
2023 Latest Caselaw 3724 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                 APPEAL SUIT No.888 of 2010

JUDGMENT:

This appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree

dated 29.07.2009 in O.S.No.2 of 2007, passed by the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad District.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the

respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2 of 2007. For

the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as

they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) Plaintiff No.1 is the father, plaintiff No.2 is the wife

and plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are the younger brothers of Dayyala

Rajalingam (hereinafter after referred to as 'the deceased'), who

was aged about 18 years at time of accident and died due to

electrocution.

(ii) On 04.01.2005 at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased

was proceeding towards the agricultural fields in the Shivar of

Thanakalan Village, Yedpally Mandal, to get the contract work

for harvesting the sugar cane and while the deceased was

passing through the field of one Lakkampally Satyanarayana in

Survey No.1195, the land-lord/pattedar asked him to observe

the supply of water and to inform him. At that time, the

deceased met with electrocution from the water stagnated

around the earth wire pipe connected to the transformer No.SS-

5 and due to which, the deceased fell down on the earth wire

and died on the spot. Later, a case was registered in the Crime

No.6 of 2005. Further, the post-mortem examination was

conducted over the dead body of the deceased in which it was

opined that the cause of death was only due to the

electrocution. Thereupon, the plaintiffs got issued legal notice to

the defendants claiming compensation but they did not choose

to pay the same. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs filed suit

vide O.S.No.2 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.

4. In a written statement filed by the defendants, they

denied the negligence on their part and further stated that the

accident has occurred only due to the action of the deceased in

proceeding towards the transformer and putting the fuse to the

wire without informing the concerned department officials or

lineman and, therefore, the trial Court grossly erred in awarding

the compensation.

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

to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 and the defendants got examined

DW.1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2. Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR

dated 04.01.2005. Ex.A2 is C.C of inquest panchanama, dated

04.01.2005. Ex.A3 is copy of legal notice, dated 25.09.2006.

Ex.A4 is Under Certificate of posting dated 25.09.2006. Ex.A5 is

the post-mortem examination report. Ex.B1 is the final report

issued by Station House Officer, Yedpally Police Station and

Ex.B2 is Departmental Enquiry Report, dated 05.01.2005.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants contended

that the SS-5 transformer is located in the vacant place and

there are 20 to 25 motors running under the said transformer

and without having any knowledge or experience, the deceased

proceeded towards the transformer at the instance of one

L.Satyanarayana and operated the fuse in the transformer, due

to which he came in contact with the water stagnated around

the earth wire and died on the spot due to electrocution. As

such, there is no negligence on the part of the defendants 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

live wires and transformers and also observed that there is no

fencing erected around the transformer, which clearly shows

that the defendants are negligent in taking all the possible

precautions. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants filed the

present appeal. Admittedly, the deceased died due to

electrocution and hence, the defendants cannot be exempted

from their liability.

8. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 18 years at the

time of accident and his father, wife and younger brothers 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.2,00,000/- 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 No.1 -

father of the deceased is permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- and

plaintiff No.2 - wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the

balance amount viz., Rs.1,50,000/-. Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are

younger brothers of the deceased and they are not the

dependents on the deceased, as such they are not entitled for

any compensation and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff Nos.3

and 4 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: 08.11.2023 PNS

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

APPEAL SUIT No.888 of 2010

DATE: 08.11.2023

PNS