The Chairmancummanaging ... vs Gondra Chandraiah,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2435 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

                APPEAL SUIT No.44 of 2017
JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18.01.2016 passed by the

learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet in

O.S.No.10 of 2011 wherein the trial Court awarded an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) towards damages as

compensation for the death of Mr. Gondra Naresh due to the

electrocution on account of the negligence on the part of the

appellants. The appellants are jointly liable to pay the said amount

to the respondents. Hence, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

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

referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as mentioned in the trial

Court.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the judgment

and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law against the

respondents on record. The trial Court erroneously fixed liability

on the appellants, whereas the accident seems to be occurred due

to the negligence of the deceased himself. Learned counsel further

contended that the deceased was studying intermediate. The trial

SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017

Court wrongly fixed the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- without

any basis and without any documentary proof. The trial Court also

failed to take into consideration the allegations in the written

statement and the evidence produced by the appellants and

without any valid reasons, came to a conclusion that the

appellants are liable to pay the compensation.

5. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are the parents of

deceased Gondra Naresh, who was studying Intermediate course at

Thirumala Co-operative Junior College, Thirmalgiri. On

09.03.2011 the deceased Gondra Naresh appeared for the

examination and went to agricultural fields to get the drinking

water in a steel pot. While returning to the house with steel pot

containing water, he came into contact with L.T electric wires

connected to the said well and died on the spot due to electric

shock. The lineman and Inspector of A.P.C.P.D.C.L have

negligently set up those electric wires and failed to rectify the same

to its normal position though it came down to the level of earth.

The neighbours have made several complaints to the Department

about the negligence of the Lineman and the Inspector. Plaintiff

No.1 lodged a complaint to the Police subsequent to the death of

Gondra Naresh, who registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2011

under Section 304-A of IPC.

SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017

6. The defendants filed written statement denying that

averments of the plaint and their contentions are that the

negligence is on the part of the deceased only and there is no

negligence on the part of the Lineman and the Inspector.

Therefore, they are not liable to pay any damages.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed four

issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 to 4 are examined

and Ex.A1 to A7 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and no

documents are marked on behalf of the defendants.

8. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence and

after hearing on both sides, the trial Court awarded the damages of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the plaintiffs.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though

there is no negligence on the part of the appellants, the trial Court

wrongly put the burden on the appellants and the deceased himself

is negligent and he has not taken proper care by walking with steel

pot, as such they are not liable to pay the compensation and

prayed the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree

and judgment of the trial Court.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents has submitted that the trial Court basing on the

evidence on record rightly concluded that the appellants are

SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017

negligent in the said accident and there is no negligence on the

part of the deceased Gondra Naresh as such no need to interfere in

the judgment of the trial Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the

appeal.

Now the points of the consideration are:

i. Whether the deceased Gondra Naresh died due to electrocution due to the negligence on the part of DWs.1 to 4 on 09.03.2011?

ii. Whether the respondents are entitled for the damages for the death of their son from the appellants as prayed for. If so, what amount?

11. To prove the claim, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and they are

seeking to claim the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death

of their son Gondra Naresh due to negligence on the part of the

defendants.

12. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased.

Plaintiff No.1 is the father of the deceased and Plaintiff No.2 is the

mother of the deceased. PW.1 in her evidence reiterated the

contents of the plaint by deposing that Naresh is their son who

died on 09.03.2011 at about 04:00 PM due to electrocution while

getting water in a steel pot from the agricultural field after

returning back to the house from his college and his death

occurred on account of negligence on the part of the defendants

who failed to attend an L.T. electric wire which was loosen and

came down to the level of earth, though several complaints were

made by the neighbouring land owners. She further stated that her

SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017

husband lodged complaint with Police regarding the incident which

was registered in Crime No.17 of 2011 for the offence punishable

under Section 304-A of IPC and a legal notice was issued to the

defendants on 06.06.2011 demanding compensation for the death

of Gondra Naresh and a reply was given with false and frivolous

allegations and she further claimed that they are entitled for

compensation.

13. PW.2 is the neighboring land owner and PW3 is the maternal

aunt of the deceased Gondra Naresh. PW.2 stated that he is the

owner of the agricultural land in Sy.No.226 of Uyyalawada Village

and doing cultivation. On 09.03.2011 at about 06:00 PM while he

was attending on agricultural works in the field, he observed that

PW.1 was crying near the agricultural well of Sagarla Buchaiah

and he went there and found that one Gondra Naresh, son of the

plaintiff died and his body was found in turtle position with a steel

vessel. PW.2 further stated that he found the burn injury on his

left fore-arm due to electric shock on account of L.T. electric wire

which is in existence in between his land and land of Sagarla

Buchaiah, as it came down to the level of a man, one has to cross

the electric wire underneath it. According to PW.2 several

complaints were made to the Lineman and the Inspector of the

Electricity Department by the villagers but they have not rectified

the said line and even did not take any proper care or precautions

SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017

to raise the height of the electric line wire and the said incident

occurred due to negligence of defendants which resulted into the

death of Gondra Naresh.

14. PW.3 also stated on the same lines of PW1 that on the date

of incident Gondra Naresh went to agricultural well to bring the

water in a steel pot while he was returning back to the house, he

was in contact with electric wire.

15. PW4 is the Panch witness for the scene of offence conducted

by the Police in Crime No.17 of 2011 and his evidence is that police

conducted panchnama in the presence of Sri Pasham Sriram

Reddy and the place of incident is the paddy field of Sagarla

Buccaiah. He further stated that he found one steel vessel with

some water at the scene of offence and three electric wires were

hanging on the western side at a distance of six feet from the vessel

to a height of 6 feet 3 inches from earth and the scene of offence is

located in between the fields of PW.2 and one Sagarla Buchaiah.

He further stated that the death of Gondra Naresh is due to

electrocution while he was getting water in the steel vessel and he

also saw the body of the deceased and found a lacerated wound on

the right hand and burn injury on the left fore-arm.

16. Against the aforesaid evidence, the defendants were

examined. DW1 in his evidence stated that the deceased Gondra

SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017

Naresh committed suicide by touching electric wire and the

plaintiffs taking advantage of the situation filed the suit with false

allegations stating that there were electrical wires hanging to a

height of 6 feet from the ground level at the scene of offence and no

complaint was lodged by anybody at any point of time. He further

stated that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants,

since the electric wires are being checked by the staff regularly and

the FIR ws lodged by the plaintiffs after due deliberations and

consultations.

17. DW2 is the Lineman of Town-II Section, Suryapet and

previously he worked as the Lineman of Arvapally Mandal from

July 2010 to 2012 and he stated that on 09.03.2011 the deceased

Gondra Naresh committed suicide and there was no incident of

electrocution at Arvapally Village and no electric live wires were

lowered nearer to ground level and the electric lines will be checked

very oftenly and periodically. He further stated that the plaintiffs

have filed the suit to make wrongful gain and there is no

negligence on the part of defendants including himself.

18. Plaintiffs have filed Ex.A1 to A7 and Ex.A1 is the Certified

Copy of FIR in Crime No.17 of 2011 which was registered basing on

the complaint given by plaintiff No.1 to the police, Arvapally for the

offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC regarding the death

of Gondra Naresh, wherein in the Ex.A1 it is mentioned that the

SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017

death of Naresh was on account of electrocution as he came into

contact with live electrical wires which were loosen and came down

nearer to the earth which he was carrying water vessel. The age of

the deceased was shown as 18 years in Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the

Certified Copy of Scene of Offence Panchnama which shows that

the scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of

PW.4 and one Pasham Sriram Reddy and the scene of offence

panchnama has been clearly recorded in Ex.A2. Ex.A2 clearly

describes that there was a steel vessel on the field bund and three

L.T. live electric wires were found to be hanging on the western

side at a distance of 6 feet and the height of each L.T wire is 6 feet

3 inches from the ground level.

19. Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of inquest report which was

submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Arvapally, in which the

age of the deceased was showing as 18 years and the cause of

death is shown as electric shock and it is also mentioned that the

deceased came into contact with the L.T wires which are at the low

level, which resulted in his death. Ex.A4 is Post Mortem

Examination report wherein the age of the deceased is mentioned

as 18 years and the cause of death is due to electric shock. Ex.A5

is the Certified Copy of Charge Sheet which is filed after final

investigation stating that the Lineman and the Inspector of

A.P.C.P.D.C.L are responsible for the said accident and case was

SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017

registered under Section 304-A of IPC. Ex.A6 is the office copy of

legal notice sent to defendants by the plaintiffs calling upon them

to pay the damages to a tune of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of the

deceased Gondra Naresh and Ex.A7 is the reply notice given by the

defendants.

20. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 found to be consistent with the

contents of Ex.A1 to A7. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 with Ex.A6

proves that the death of Gondra Naresh is on account of negligence

on the part of the Lineman, who failed to attend the electric wires

which came down and hanging just at a height of 6 feet 3 inches

from the ground level. Though several complaints are given to the

electricity department, they are not attending the said electric

wires, which shows the negligence on the part of the defendants

who failed to rectify the L.T electric wires which are hanging to low

level. The evidence of the defendants is that the deceased

committed suicide, but no evidence is adduced to prove the same

and the scene of offence panchnama clearly shows that the electric

wires are hanging at the height of 6 feet 3 inches from the ground

level and it is not possible for committing suicide at that distance.

The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 shows that at the time of accident

the deceased was carrying water with steel pot and it is common in

the villages. He took water from agricultural well, as such the

contention of the defendants that he committed suicide is nowhere

SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017

proved in the trial Court. The plaintiffs are the parents of the

deceased who lost their own son which is an irreparable injury to

their family and no compensation is paid by the defendants to the

plaintiffs. The negligence attributed against the defendants has

been established, which resulted to the death of young boy. The

defendants refused to award compensation amount to the

plaintiffs, which is miscarriage of justice, particularly when the

incident took place on account of negligence on the part of the

defendants. Taking into consideration the age and future prospects

of the deceased, the trial Court awarded an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and the same is liable to be

paid by the defendants. Further the appellants also contended

that compensation awarded by the trial Court is on high side.

Respondents claimed 12 lakhs as compensation where as tribunal

awarded only 5 lakhs. Respondents/Plaintiffs lost their young son

who is aged about 18 years. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

21. The respondents have not filed any cross appeal for

enhancement of the compensation. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4

along with Ex.A1 to A5 documents proved the negligence on the

part of the Electricity Board.

22. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the Judgment of the trial

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

SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017

accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

There shall be no order as to costs.

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

stand closed.

______________ K.SUJANA, J

DATE:

SAI

SKS,J A.S.No.44 of 2017

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

APPEAL SUIT No.44 of 2017

Date:

SAI