Telangana High Court
The Chairman And Managing Director, vs Kemoju Brahma Chary, on 14 August, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
APPEAL SUIT No.282 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal filed by the Central Power Distribution Company
(for short, the company) against the judgment dated 15.07.2010 passed by
the Senior civil Judge, Miryalguda, (for short, the trial Court) in O.S.No.87
of 2003. For the sake of convenience of reference, the parties will be
referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. By the impugned
judgment, the trial Court partly-decreed the suit by granting a
compensation of Rs.3,46,400/- with proportionate costs and subsequent
interest thereon at 9% per annum on the said compensation from the date
of the suit till the date of realization, on account of the death of one
Satyanarayana (for short, the deceased) in an electrocution incident that
occurred on 22.08.1999; and directed the defendants 2 to 5 to pay the
compensation within three months from the date of the judgment, while
dismissing the suit against defendant No.1-District Collector.
2. Heard Sri R. Vinod Reddy for the appellants / defendants and Sri
Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs.
3. The plaintiffs are residents of Kondrapole village. On 22.08.1999 due
to high gale, their house was damaged. In the process of reconstruction,
the deceased Satyanarayana who was attending to the work on newly
constructed wall, suffered electric shock from high tension electric wires
going across the plaintiffs house and died instantaneously. The Police,
Wadapally registered a case in Crime No.45/1999 under Section 174
Cr.P.C., and conducted inquest over the dead body. The postmortem
examination conducted by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Miryalguda Hospital,
opined that the death was due to electric shock. The deceased was aged
about 22 years by the date of incident. He was a skilled carpenter and
used to earn about Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month and was looking
after his parents (plaintiffs). The plaintiffs approached the trial Court by
filing O.S.No.87 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under
various Heads. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, granted a compensation of Rs.3,46,400/- with proportionate
costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of
realization against defendants 2 to 5. The judgment of the trial Court is
under challenge in this appeal by the Central Power Distribution
Company.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants-company would contend that
there was no negligence on the part of appellants in maintaining the
electrical wires as per the written statement and evidence of DWs.2 to 4
and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It is also
contended that the provisions of Section 82 of the Limitation Act apply to
the suit and therefore the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed
beyond the period of two years from the date of incident. It is also
contended that the trial Court erred in entertaining the suit by observing
that Section 82 of the Limitation Act does not apply and, on the contrary,
the provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act apply to the suit. It is
also contended that the trial Court erroneously held that the judgment in
A.P. Electricity Board, Hyderabad, v. Y. Venukumar 1 applies to the case
and passed the impugned judgment. It is also contended that the electric
wires are at a height of above 20 feet from the ground level and the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, and further there
is no evidence to show that the deceased was aged 22 years and was
earning Rs.80/- per day for the purpose of awarding compensation. It is
also contended that the judgments relied on with regard to the doctrine of
strict liability have no application to the facts of the case and the trial
Court on erroneous appreciation of the facts and law passed the impugned
judgment and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs would primarily
contend that the evidence on record would show that the electrical wires
were hanging dangerously low which lead to the cause of accident. It is
also contended that with regard to the aspect of limitation under Section
82 of the Limitation Act, the trial Court has rightly observed that Section
82 does not apply, and with regard to the negligence, the trial Court held
the defendants failed in properly maintaining the electrical wires which
2006 (3) ALD 710
was the reason for electric shock causing the death of deceased. It is
therefore contended that the trial Court has appreciated the facts and law
in right perspective and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. Considering the respective submissions, and perusing the material
on record, it is pertinent to note that the trial Court has framed issues for
determination, namely, (i) limitation, (ii) cause of action, and (iii) quantum
of compensation.
7. With regard to the issue of limitation, the trial Court referred to two
decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs; which are (i)
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy 2 which is a case
relating to the request of plaintiff and father therein to provide security in
the jail apprehending danger to their life in the hands of sub-inspector on
his alleged conspiracy with assailants in hurling bombs at the plaintiff and
father and in the bomb attack the father of plaintiff died in the jail. The
plaintiff's mother filed suit claiming Rs.10,00,000/- in compensation. The
State Government argued that the act relates to omission of duty by the
sub-inspector and therefore Article 72 of the Limitation Act applies which
is one year from the date of incident, and the trial Court therein dismissed
the suit and the High Court on appeal set aside the trial Court's judgment
holding that Article 113 of the Limitation Act applies which gives three
AIR 2000 SC 2083
year time period to file the suit. Similar case law regarding applicability of
Article 113 of Limitation Act was discussed in A.P. State Electricity
Board, Hyderabad v. Y.Venu Kumar 3, which is a case where one
VeeraRaghava died when he went to fetch green grass and in the process
came into contact with live wires lying in the crop; and in this case also
when the matter went uptoHon'ble Supreme Court, the apex Court held
that in such cases of death due to electric shock, Article 113 of Limitation
Act applies and not Article 72 of the Limitation Act.
8. With regard to the cause of action and entitlement to compensation,
it is the evidence of PW.1 (mother of the deceased) that the deceased went
onto the roof for supervising the wall newly constructed and the high
tension wires of the company are lying so low that the deceased sustained
electric shock and suffered instantaneous death. PWs.2 and 3 who are
villagers also deposed that they made oral requests to the company to
secure the wires properly to avert any untoward incident but no action was
taken by the company. PW.3 who is the neighbor of PW.1 deposed that
electric lines are going across over their houses to the railway quarters and
that due to improper maintenance the wires have been hanging loose
towards the ground and due to that reason the deceased sustained shock.
PW3 further deposed that if vertical clearance had been maintained and
proper insulation like any plastic pipe around the wires are inserted, the
2006 (3) ALD 710
accident would not have occurred. During cross examination, PW3
deposed that they made oral representations but not made any written
complaint for rectifying the electric lines. PW3 denied the suggestion that
the deceased Satyanarayana was curing the parapet wall. With respect to
the evidence on defendants side, DW3 and DW4 are important witnesses.
DW3 is the Line Inspector, and DW4 is the lineman of the company and he
attends to the section covering Kondrapole village. Both DW3 and DW4
deposed that theplaintiffs encroached into government land and made
construction and at the time of incident they were extending their
construction at a height of 14 feet with tin sheets and that it is
unauthorized construction violating Grampanchayat rules without any
permission that the total height of theline from ground level is 24 feet, that
their enquiry reveals that the deceased stood upon the 14 feet wall and
tried curing the newly constructed wall and in that process he suffered
electric shock and died. DW3 stated that generally unless a person goes to
close to one feet from the 11 KV electric wire, he cannot sustain electric
shock. DW4 deposed that long ago electric line was laid, and in the cross
examination DW4 admitted that the plaintiffs family was living there from
the time of their forefathers. None of the defendants side witnesses
produced any record to show that the electric wires were properly being
maintained. The trial Court therefore held that the company is tortuously
liable as they were negligent in maintaining the electric lines properly.
9. Further, the defendants contended that there is no cause of action
against the defendants as the deceased died of his own negligence by
coming in contact with electric wires. In this context, the trial Court
referred to the case in Asa Ram v. Metro Corporation, Delhi 4 and also
the case in P. Ramulu v. The S.E Electrical Operation, APSEB,
Mahaboobnagar 5 which is a similar case wherein a lady was grazing her
buffaloes and a live wire snapped and fell on the ground and the buffaloes
came into contact with the wire and when the buffaloes cried in pain the
lady in the effort to save them died along with the buffaloes due to the
electric shock. The Hon'ble Supreme Court applied the principle of "strict
liability" and awarded compensation to the plaintiffs therein. The trial
Court considering the precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the company is responsible for the accident under strict liability.
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, PW1 deposed that the
deceased used to earn about Rs.4000 to Rs.5000 per month. However,
there is no documentary evidence placed on record. The trial Court has
taken Rs.80/- per day as the income of the deceased, and deducted 1/3
towards his personal expenditure, thereby Rs.1600/- as monthly income of
the deceased. And as the deceased crossed 23 years of age by the date of
the demise, the trial Court took multiplier 17 as per Second Schedule
AIR 1995 Delhi 164
2008 (3) Law Summary 271 (DB)
under Motor Vehicles Act, and computed the total compensation to be
Rs.3,46,400/- including Rs.10,000/- each for pain and suffering, and for
funeral expenses, to be paid by defendants 2 to 5 with proportionate costs
and interest at 9% per annum, within three months.
11. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the
material on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has
appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective and therefore
impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality warranting
interference by this Court.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous
petitions if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka
14th August, 2024
ksm
