Telangana High Court
The Chairman A.P.S.E.B. vs G. Narasimha Rao on 16 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT NO.3640 OF 2003
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants-Electricity
Department against the Decree and Judgment dated
03.02.2003 passed in O.S.No.19 of 1998 by the Senior Civil
Judge, Sathupalli, Khammam District.
2. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.19 of
1998. They filed the suit claiming compensation of
Rs.1,15,000/- to each of the plaintiff from the defendants
therein. The averments of the plaint are that plaintiffs are
residents of Kakarlapalli Village of Sathupalli Mandal. The
first plaintiff had a she buffalo aged about 7 years and the
second plaintiff had a she buffalo aged about 6 years worth of
Rs.15,000/- each. On 01.07.1997, the above she buffaloes
found dead at the Mango garden of Kancherla Ramesh at
Kakarlapalli Village. The live wire attached to the electricity
pole in the said garden was found cut and fallen on the she
buffaloes, due to which, they died instantaneously. The
matter was reported to the police, conducted panchanama
and mediators opined that the death of she buffaloes was due
to electric shock. As such, the plaintiffs claimed compensation
of Rs.1,15,000/- each with costs.
3. The appellants herein who are the defendants in the
said suit filed written statement stating that suit itself is not
maintainable. Plaintiffs have not filed any document to show
that they are the owners of she buffaloes, their value and the
income they derive from them. As per the panchanama
conducted by the police, the electric wire was cut lying on the
ground and when the she buffaloes went for grazing in the
Mango garden they came into contact with it, got electrocuted
and died. The police have not registered any case against the
defendants. The post mortem report shows only the date of
death and it also does not state the age of she buffaloes. It is
also stated that defendants 4 and 5 were not informed about
snatching of electrical wire either by the owners of garden or
the villagers. If the snatching of wire was reported to the
defendants, they may have rectified it. As such there is no
negligence on the part of defendants and requested the trial
Court to dismiss the suit.
4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the trial Court examined
Pws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.17. On behalf of the
defendants, Dw.1 was examined and no documents were
marked on their behalf. The trial Court framed two issues and
decided in favour of plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, this
appeal is filed by the defendants.
5. Heard Sri A.Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri Kilaru Khader Baba,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is
that the trial Court failed to appreciate that there is no
intimation to the Department with regard to snapping of wire;
that the trial Court committed error in holding negligence on
the part of Department, though there is no intimation to the
Department with regard to falling of wire. The element of
negligence would arise only when the Department does not
respond inspite of intimation. The further contention of
learned counsel for the appellants is that the trial Court failed
to give finding regarding negligence on the part of appellants
herein, without there being any negligence on the part of
appellants, compensation was awarded when the snapping of
electrical wire was not informed to the appellants, they cannot
be made parties to the suit, as the appellants herein had no
knowledge of the same. If the same is brought to their notice
and no action is taken by the Department, then only the
parties can claim compensation from the appellants. Learned
counsel further contended that this Court while granting stay
directed the appellants to deposit half of the decreetal amount
and costs and the appellants have paid an amount of
Rs.1,31,646/- in the present case. As such, prayed this Court
to set aside the judgment of trial Court.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
would submit that there is no illegality in the judgment of trial
Court as the loss caused to both the respondents was due to
the negligence of the appellants herein, the she buffaloes of
the respondents got electrocuted. Hence, prayed to dismiss
this appeal.
8. Basing on the said contentions, the following points
arise for determination :
1. Whether the appellants are responsible for the death of
she buffaloes ?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the trial Court is
exorbitant ?
3. Whether the judgment of the trial Court needs any
interference ?
POINT NOs. 1 TO 3 :
9. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is
that due to the negligence of appellants, the she buffaloes
died. There is no proof that the death of she buffaloes was
due to electrocution, however, the panchanama clearly states
that both the she buffaloes died due to electrocution. Further
the only contention raised by the appellants herein is that
snapping of electrical wire was not informed to them and as it
is not informed, they have not attended to the said issue.
Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of appellants,
whereas the trial Court decided the said issue basing on the
evidence of Pws.1 to 3.
10. The trial Court relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in G.K.Subramania Iyer and others V
T.Kunhikuttan Nair and others 1 and in Chairman MPEB,
Rampur Jabalpur and another V Bhajan Goud and others 2.
In G.K.Subramania Iyer's case, it was observed that
compulsory damages under Section I.A of the Fatal Accidents
Act, for wrongful death must be limited strictly to the
pecuniary loss to the beneficiaries and under Section 2 the
measure of damages is the economic loss sustained by the
estate. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the
value of human life and the measure of damages cannot be
arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. Further, in
Chairman MPEB, Rampur, Jabalpur's case, it was observed
that due to electrocution by live electric wire which has
broken and lying in field principle of resipsa loquitur applies,
burden is on the Electricity Board to prove that there was no
negligence on their part.
11. In the present case also, it is an admitted fact that
electrical wires lying in the fields and due to electrocution
both the she buffaloes died. As such there is no illegality in
the judgment of trial Court deciding negligence on the part of
appellants, as no evidence is adduced by appellants to show
1 AIR 1970 Supreme Court, 376
2 AIR 1999 Madhya Pradesh 17
that there is no negligence on the part of Electricity Board.
With regard to the amount awarded by the trial Court the cost
of the buffalo was taken as Rs.15,000/- each. According to
Pw.5, each she buffalo gives 8 to 10 liters of milk per day and
if they would have alive, they would have delivered 7 or 8
calves and after the delivery of calves, the said she buffaloes
would have given milk for 10 months. The only ground relied
on by the trial court for awarding the total amount of
Rs.1,15,000/- is that Dw.1 did not deny the claim. Even
though it is the duty of the Court to estimate the loss caused
to the parties due to the death of she buffaloes, there is no
scientific calculation for estimation of loss, though it is
mentioned that the cost of she buffalo is Rs.15,000/-. There
is no proper calculation for the loss caused to the plaintiffs
therein, though plaintiffs claim that the she buffaloes would
give 7 or 8 calves. As already the cost of she buffaloes was
awarded, the plaintiffs can buy new she buffaloes. Therefore,
the calculation arrived at by the trial Court is not in
accordance with the rules. Further, the appellants herein
have already deposited Rs.1,31,646/- in the trial Court and
the respondents have withdrawn the entire amount as
directed by this Court. Accordingly, point Nos.1 to 3 are
answered.
12. In view of the above discussion, the Appeal Suit is
disposed of limiting the amount already paid by the appellants
herein to the respondents. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :16.04.2025
Rds
