Telangana High Court
The Superintending Engineer vs Jajyo Laxmi Bai on 8 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.401 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
decree dated 11.11.2021 passed by the IX Additional District
Judge at Kamareddy, in A.S.No.2 of 2016, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 02.12.2015 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge, Kamareddy, in O.S.No.7 of 2010.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal
are that the respondent /plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.7 of
2010 against the appellants/defendants for grant of compensation
of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was contended that the plaintiff's husband
was a sick person and he cannot do any work; that she was
maintaining her family by running a kirana shop and also doing
tailoring work in her rented room, and was earning a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month. It was further contended that high
voltage electricity wire was passing in front of her kirana shop
through electric pole; that on 21.11.2008 at about 11:45 a.m., when 2 LNA, J S.A.No.401 of 2022
the workers of the Electricity Department i.e., defendants were
pulling the wire without taking any precautions and proper care
and in a rash and negligent manner, the electrical wire suddenly
fell on the plaintiff, as a result of which, the plaintiff sustained
injury to her left eye.
4. The plaintiff was shifted to Dr. Sammi Reddy Eye Hospital,
Kamareddy, where she was provided first aid and as the injury
was grievous in nature, she was referred to L.V. Prasad Eye
Hospital, Hyderabad, for treatment. The doctor, who treated the
plaintiff at L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, opined that the
electric wire intersected the cornea of her left eye, and therefore,
she may not regain the vision to her left eye. It was also
contended that the plaintiff underwent operation to her left eye at
L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital and was treated as inpatient for five
days.
5. It was further contended that the husband of the plaintiff
approached the police, Kamareddy Police Station, and lodged a
complaint, but, no action has been taken thereon. Hence, she
lodged a private complaint before the Court below against the 3 LNA, J S.A.No.401 of 2022
defendant No.2 and two others and the same was forwarded to
the Station House Officer, Kamareddy Police Station, who in
turn, registered a case in Crime No.288 of 2009 under Section 338
I.P.C.
6. It was further contended that the plaintiff lost vision of her
left eye due to sheer negligence on the part of the employees of
the defendants; she had spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- for her
treatment and medical expenses and also lost earnings.
Therefore, she filed the O.P. claiming compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation/damages.
7. The defendant No.2 filed written statement and the same
was adopted by the defendant Nos.1 and 3, whereas, the
defendant No.4 was set ex parte. In the written statement, the
defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the plaint averments, but they
admitted that high voltage electric live wire was passing in front
of the house of the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 stated that
the plaintiff filed a private complaint with an inordinate delay
and that on completion of investigation, the police closed the
case. It was further stated that the compensation was barred by 4 LNA, J S.A.No.401 of 2022
limitation and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any
compensation.
8. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and
Exs.A1 and A.31 were marked. On behalf of the defendants,
D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
9. The trial Court, after considering the entire material
available on record, decreed the suit granting compensation of
Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree
dated 02.12.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.1 to
3 filed an appeal vide A.S.No.2 of 2016. The first Appellate Court
on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the
material available on record dismissed the appeal confirming the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, vide judgment and
decree dated 02.12.2015. Hence, the present Second Appeal.
10. Heard Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel for
TSNPDCL appearing for the appellants and Sri Sridhar Lonkala,
the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 5
LNA, J S.A.No.401 of 2022
11. A perusal of the record discloses that both the Courts
concurrently held that due to negligence of the workers of the
electricity department, the plaintiff sustained injury to her left eye
and therefore, she is entitled for compensation.
12. Though the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
appellants vehemently argued that the trial Court decreed the
suit without proper appreciation of the evidence and the first
Appellate Court erred in confirming the same, the learned
Standing Counsel failed to raise any substantial question of law
to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the
grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not
qualify as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100
C.P.C.
13. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the
Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100
C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings
arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 6
LNA, J S.A.No.401 of 2022
14. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 1, the Apex Court held that
the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the
evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under
Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only
where a substantial question of law is raised and fell for
consideration.
15. Having considered the entire material available on record
and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first
Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting
interference with the said concurrent findings, under Section 100
C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are factual
in nature and no question of law much less a substantial question
of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.
16. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: .01.2024
va
1
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
