Telangana High Court
A.P. Electricity Board vs P. Shantamma on 24 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT NOs.2250 OF 2000 AND 1643 OF 2001
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both these appeals are filed by the defendants aggrieved
by the decree and judgment dated 09.08.1995 in O.S.No.40 of
1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Asifabad.
A.S.No.2250 of 2000 is filed by the appellants who are
defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.40 of 1987 and A.S.No.1643 of
2001 is filed by the appellants who are defendant Nos.4 and 5
in the said suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter
referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.40 of 1987.
3. O.S.No.40 of 1987 was filed by the plaintiffs claiming
damages of Rs.2,30,400/- from the defendants for the death
of one P.Bapu who died on 06.10.1984 at 3.30 hours due to
rash and negligent act of defendants 1 to 3 and defendant
Nos.4 and 5 are vicariously liable for the negligent act of
defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 and 7 are the sons of
1st plaintiff and plaintiff No.6 is the daughter of the deceased
Bapu. On the night of 03.10.1984, the 1st defendant
celebrated Ursu at Jamedhar-ki-darga at Asifabad. The Darga
was electrified by defendant No.3 at the instance of defendant
No.1 and power connection was taken from the house of
defendant No.2. In the Ursu defendant No.1 has arranged
kavali programme at the Darga on 03.10.1984 and since that
date illumination of electrification was arranged for the
purpose of Ursu which was continued till 06.10.1984.
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have not removed electric wires across
the way of Darga even after celebration of Ursu which were
erected with the help of Bamboo Sticks without taking
necessary precautions. The power connection was taken from
the main wire from the house of defendant No.2 was
supported by G.I.wire which contains many joints, was not
properly covered by defendant No.3. On the night of
05.10.1984, the deceased and some others were celebrating
Moharram festival at Quadim Masjid at Asifabad, at about
3.30 hours, the deceased along with others had taken
procession of "Alams" and while proceeding towards Jamedar-
ki-darga, Alam came into contact with electric wire erected by
defendant Nos.1 to 3. One Podupuganti Pullaiah, Narayana,
the deceased Bapu and some others tried to remove electric
wires unaware of power supply through the said wire. All the
above persons received electric shock, but escaped unhurt,
except the deceased Bapu who received severe shock and
while taking to hospital, on the way he died. As such, legal
heirs of the deceased claimed compensation from defendant
No.1 who organized Ursu, defendant No.2 who supplied
electricity and defendant No.3 who electrified Darga in a rash
and negligent manner and defendant Nos.4 and 5 who have
not taken proper care and caution.
4. According to the plaintiffs, the deceased is the only
earning member of the family; that the deceased was aged
about 51 years and he was a Washer man earning Rs.800/-
per month. As such claimed compensation of Rs.3,30,400/-
towards damages.
5. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement
denying that the deceased died due to their rash and negligent
act and defendant Nos.4 and 5 denied that they are
vicariously liable for the negligent act of defendant Nos.1 to 3.
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied electrification of Darga and also
denied that electricity connection was taken from the house of
defendant No.2. When they have not arranged any electrical
wire, the question of removing the wire from Darga does not
arise. They further submitted that the plaintiffs have already
initiated criminal proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 under
Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and the said case ended in
acquittal. Therefore, they are no way liable for the said
accident. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 further claimed that they are
poor labourers and they have no money to celebrate Ursu, as
such, the question of electrification of Darga does not arise. As
such, prayed the trial Court to dismiss the suit.
6. Defendant No.5 filed written statement stating that
there is no vicarious liability on defendant Nos.4 and 5 as
defendant Nos.1 to 3 have not taken any permission for
electrification and they are not aware of said electrification.
When they are not aware of the same, the question of
negligence on their part does not arise. As such, requested
the trial Court to dismiss the suit.
7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Pws.1 to 4 were examined
and Exs.A.1 to A.5 are marked. On behalf of defendants,
Dws.1 to 6 were examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. After
hearing both sides and considering the documents, the trial
Court framed issues and decreed the suit awarding Rs.1 Lakh
as compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment, these
appeals are filed by the defendants.
8. Heard Sri N. Mukunda Reddy Ravi, learned counsel for
the appellants in A.S.No.2250 of 20000, Sri A.Chandra
Shaker, learned counsel for the appellants in A.S.No.1643 of
2001 and Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
9. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants in
A.S.No.2250 of 2001 who are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.40
of 1987 is that no evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to
prove that defendants 1 to 3 are responsible for the accident.
There is no evidence to show that it is Pw.1 who organized the
said Ursu Programme and no evidence to show that the
electricity connection was taken from the house of defendant
No.2. Without there being any evidence, the trial Court erred
in awarding damages of Rs.1 Lakh. It is further contended
that defendants 4 and 5 are only responsible for the said
accident and they are no way responsible.
10. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for
the appellants in A.S.No.1643 of 2001 who are defendants 4
and 5 in O.S.No.40 1987 is that the Electricity Board has no
knowledge about the accident, no permission was taken by
defendants 1 to 3 for electrification of Darga and that they are
not aware of the said Ursu programme. As such, they cannot
be made liable vicariously for the acts of defendants 1 to 3. As
such, prayed this Court to set aside the judgment and decree
of the trial court.
11. Basing on the said contentions, now the points to be
considered in these appeals is :
1. Whether the deceased died to electrocution, if so,
defendants 1 to 5 are responsible for the same ?
2. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs any
interference ?
POINT NOs.1 AND 2 :
12. As seen from the record, to prove the claim of plaintiffs,
the trial Court examined Pws.1 to 5 wherein Pw.1 is the son of
the deceased Bapu. He stated about how the 'Peers' were
taken and when the electric wire touched the 'Peer', the
deceased lifted the said wire wherein he got electric shock and
while he was taking to the hospital, he died on the way. He
further stated that the persons belonging to the electricity
department are also present at the scene. To prove his
contention Pw.1 relied on Ex.A.1-certified copy of the FIR,
Ex.A.2-certified copy of Express FIR, Ex.A.3-Panchanama,
Ex.A.4-certified copy of post-mortem report and Ex.A.5-case
diary.
13. Further, Pw.2 who is a resident of the same village also
deposed as that of Pw.1 stating that while Alam was being
taken in procession and passed the Darga, the incident took
place. His evidence shows about occurrence of incident and
death of the deceased. Pws.3 and 4 are the drum beaters and
they stated that Alam was stopped because of obstruction of
electric wire, and the deceased lifted the wire. They further
stated that electric supply was taken from the house of
defendant No.2 and Ursu programme was conducted by
defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 electrified the Darga.
14. Further, defendant No.1 was examined as Dw.1 and his
evidence is that he never celebrated Ursu programme
including during the death of the deceased, moreover, he
denied that at his instance power connection was taken from
the house of defendant No.2. The evidence on record shows
that the deceased died due to electric shock and post-mortem
report also confirms the same. Therefore, there is no illegality
in the judgment confirming that the death of the deceased was
due to electric shock, whereas the negligence on the part of
defendant Nos.1 to 3 has to be proved by the plaintiffs with
cogent evidence. The evidence on record shows that the
Darga was electrified and the height of the wire was only six
feet, as such, during that process it was lifted with a stick.
This evidence is not sufficient to prove that defendant Nos.1 to
3 are responsible for the said incident, whereas, the evidence
adduced shows that electricity connection was taken from the
house of defendant No.2. Mere giving connection from the
house of defendant No.2 itself cannot be said that defendant
No.2 is negligent. The defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have not taken
proper care and caution, when such a programme is
conducted. As such, negligence on the part of defendant
Nos.2 and 3 decided by the trial Court is set aside. As the
defendant Nos.4 and 5 is the Electricity Department, they are
responsible for the death of deceased. Further, the trial Court
awarded Rs.1,00,000/- basing on the evidence of Pw.1.
However, there is no evidence to prove the income of deceased.
There is no calculation on what basis the amount was
awarded. As seen from the record, defendant Nos.4 and 5
have already paid Rs.1,42,389/- by way of demand draft on
25.01.2001 and deposited the same in the trial Court.
Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered.
15. In view of the above discussion, A.S.No.2250 of 2000 is
allowed and A.S.No.1643 of 2001 is disposed of limiting the
amount already deposited by defendant Nos.4 and 5 and the
same was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :24.04.2025
Rds
