Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Appeal vs M.P. Electricity Board 4 on 28 August, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
APPEAL SUIT NO.276 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the decree and Judgment dated 11.12.2012 in O.S.No.68 of 2010 (old O.S.No.24 of 2008) passed by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Gudivada (for short, 'trial court').
2. The respondents 1 to 4, who are the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.68 of 2010 (old O.S.No.24 of 2008) claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- for the death of Polagani Rajeswari (hereinafter will be re- ferred to as 'the deceased') who died due to electrocution.
3. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The brief averments, of the plaint, are as under:
The plaintiffs are the husband and children of the deceased, respectively. The unfortunate incident occurred on 02.06.2007 around 08.00 AM resulting in the death of the deceased due to electrocution. It was caused by the negligence of defendants 1 to
5. Along with the deceased, one N.Veeramma, the deceased's mother, also lost her life in the same incident. One week before the incident, the deceased's daughter wedding took place in Lingala, and N.Veeramma had gone to the house of the deceased, who is her daughter, to attend the event. The 2 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013 circumstances leading to the incident involve electrical wires including the service wire owned by the 5th defendant, which was routed through the deceased's bathroom area. The deceased had repeatedly requested the 5th defendant to remove the wires, but the 5th defendant claimed to have informed the defendants 1, 2 and 4 about the matter. The 5th defendant connected the service wire to a telephone pole, and the deceased's family members installed a pole for drying clothes. On 02.06.2007 at approximately at 8.00 AM, the deceased's mother went to the bathroom; she suffered electrocution in the thatched bathroom. The deceased also went to the same place to hand over a saree to her mother and also got electrocuted, resulting in her immediate death. Following the incident, a case in Cr.No.55 of 2007 was registered against the 5th defendant by the Mandavalli Police. The charge sheet was subsequently filed. The deceased and N.Veeramma died due to electrocution because of the negligence of defendants 1 to 5. The plaintiffs issued a notice to the defendants on 15.10.2007 demanding compensation; defendants 1 to 4 received the notice and responded, but the 5th defendant avoided receiving notice.
5. Defendants 1 to 3 have adopted the 4th defendant's written state- ment, wherein they contended that the 4th defendant knew about the 5th defendant's electrical service wire and current motors electrical cables passed through the bathroom of the deceased P.Rajeswari's house. She 3 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013 requested the 5th defendant to remove the wire etc. The 4th defendant learned that service connection No.119 was released on 03.04.1985 by Addl. Asst. Engineer Operation, Kaikaluru; service connection is found passing touching a telephone pole, and the insulation of the said service wire got damaged and passed the supply to a telephone pole and G.I., wire fixed between the telephone and another pole, which was passing over the bathroom and current passed into that G.I., wire. The electricity depart- mental people are in no way responsible for damaging the insulation of the service wire, and the 5th defendant alone is accountable for the accident. On enquiry, it is revealed that a service wire runs between his house and an electrical pole after the release of supply in 1985 to the 5th defendant. After that, the Polagani Maddi Ramaiah, the deceased's husband, con- structed a house between the 5th defendant and the electrical pole, and at that time, the service wire was tied to that telephone pole without the knowledge or consent of any of the electrical departmental people and due to efflux of time, the said wire got damaged the insulation of the service wire, and that was touching a telephone pole, and electricity passed into that telephone pole. Nobody observed the same, and no report was given to the electrical department. The deceased might have placed the wet sa- ree that was soaked in the water on the G.I., tied in between a bamboo pole and telephone pole for drying up her clothes, thereby she might have electrocuted. The claim is high, and the suit is speculative and, therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.
4
TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013
6. The 5th defendant filed the written statement contended inter-alia that the wire of the 5th defendant's house is not passing through the bath- room of the deceased and defendants 1 to 4 have not responded on the 5 th defendant's complaint in time and the negligence is only on the part of the defendants 1 to 4, which resulted the causing of accident.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the death of the deceased caused due to negligence and carelessness of the defendant-electricity department?
(2) Whether electrical power gave shock and caused death of the deceased when she come into contact with live electrical wire as contended by the defendants in the written statements?
(3) Whether the compensation claimed by the plaintiffs for the death of the deceased is just, reasonable and proper?
(4) Whether the defendants are liable to pay any compensation as contended by them in their written statement?
(5) To what relief?
8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the defen- dants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.B.1.
9. After completion of trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in part for Rs.1,50,000/- with proportio- nate costs and interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of realization, directing the defendants 1 to 5 to pay the same and dismissed the rest of the suit claim without costs.
5
TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013
10. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Standing Counsel for the appellants 1 to 4/defendants 1 to 4, contends that the accident was a result of the de- ceased's gross negligence rather than the negligence of the Corporation's employees; no individuals had lodged any complaints with the department regarding the service wire connected to the Telephone pole and passing over the bathroom; it was the consumer's responsibility to effectively maintain the electricity connection, thereby preventing any accidents. He asserts that the consumer had the duty to regularly inspect the service wire and promptly notify the department of any damages. Since no such complaints were raised, he contends that the department cannot be held accountable for the unfortunate incident. He further asserts that in cases, where service is damaged, the department is prepared to assist its re- placement which a new one.
11. Per contra, Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs would contend that the trial Court correctly appreciated the case facts and reached a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the trial Court do not want any modification.
12. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the Trial Court and in light of the rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for de- termination:
1) Whether there was negligence on the part of the Elec-
tricity Board to make it liable to pay the compensa- tion?
6
TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013
2) Whether the Judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference?
POINT NOs.1 & 2:
13. The following facts are either admitted or undisputed:
a. One Nangedda Veeramma is, in fact, the mother of the de-
ceased Polangi Rajeswari. Around week prior to the incident, Veeramma had visited her daughter/Rajeswari's residence due to her grand daughter's wedding preparation.
b. The 5th defendant built a residence about twenty-five years back and had an electricity service connection bearing No.119 in Lingala village for his home; over these period, he had been using a service connection through a service wire.
The 5th defendant's house is situated on the Southern side of the residence belonging to PW.1's son-in-law. On 02.06.2007, the deceased and her mother, N.Veeramma, suffered electro-
cution in close proximity to the deceased's residence bath-
room.
14. After considering the evidence, the trial Court granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not pre- ferred the appeal or cross objection questioning the quantum of compen- sation awarded.
15. The 1st plaintiff (Polangi Maddi Ramaiah), who is the husband of the deceased, examined as PW.1; the plaintiffs 2 and 3 (P.Rambabu and 7 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013 P.Nagababu respectively) are the sons of the deceased and PW.1 and 4th plaintiff (PW.2) is their daughter. As per the PW.1's testimony, the 5 th de- fendant connected a service wire to a telephone pole, and the deceased's family members set up a pole to dry clothes. On June 2nd 2007, around 8:00 AM, N.Veeramma went to the bathroom in a thatched hut near the telephone pole to take a bath. An electrical current flowed through the wire that was passing through the bathroom, causing the N.Veeramma's body to become electrified. This resulted in Veeramma, the deceased's mother, being electrocuted and falling. Around that time, the deceased approached the bathroom to give a saree to her mother Veeramma. The deceased and Veeramma suffered electrocution and passed away instant- ly. There is no disagreement regarding this account presented by PW.1.
16. Following an investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet stat- ing that the cause of death was accidental electrocution. The postmortem report also confirms that the cause of death was electrocution. Consider- ing the evidence on record, it becomes undeniably clear that the deceased passed away as a result of electrocution. PW.2 (K. Siva Parvathi) testified about the incident in a manner consistent with the evidence provided by PW.1. According to PW.2's evidence, the bathroom was constructed just ten days before her marriage. During that period, a G.I (Galvanized Iron) wire was connected from a telephone pole to a bamboo pole. There is no dispute regarding PW.2's presence at the paternal house in Lingala village during the time of the occurrence of the death.
8
TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013
17. While there is no dispute regarding the deceased's passing, the plaintiffs relied on Ex.A.1-copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2-copy of postmortem re- port, Ex.A.3-copy of inquest report. Additionally, they relied on Ex.B.1- certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.433 of 2007 on the file of AJFCM, Kaikaluru, to demonstrate that the 5th defendant had been found guilty of an offence punishable under section 304A of I.P.C., and was convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., and was sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
18. It is the admitted case that the deceased died due to electrocution. In light of this fact, the matter at hand pertains to whether the defendants' negligence led to the occurrence of the death of the deceased, consequent- ly warranting consideration for compensation to be granted to the plain- tiffs.
19. In Prafulla Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa1, the Apex Court has held that negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon these considerations which ordinarily regulate the con- duct of human affairs would do or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
20. In Ramesh Kumar Nayak v. Union of India 2, the Apex Court con- sidered the meaning of negligence and held that negligence means failure to exercise the required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver.
1 1995 Cri LJ 1277 2 1995 ACJ 443 : (AIR 1994 Ori 279) 9 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013
21. In Chatra and another v. Imrat Lal and others3, the Apex Court, while defining the meaning of negligence, has stated that negligence means the breach of the provisions of law as also the breach of the duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human af- fairs, would do or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The negligence or the rashness would depend upon the facts of each case.
22. In a decision reported in Shail Kumari vs M.P. Electricity Board 4, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed thus:
"8. xxx The standard of care required of a body like the Electricity Board is a high one owing to the dangerous nature of electricity. It is negligence on its part to omit to use all reasonable known means to keep the electricity harmless. There is no burden on the plaintiff to prove negligence. If the defendant produces no material and evidence to negative negligence, negligence will be presumed.
....It is expected of the Board to do whatever is required to be done to avoid an accident. Its negligence cannot be equated with the negligence of an individual or situational negligence. There is a presumption of negligence when an accident of this nature occurs. The heavy onus is cast on the Board. It is required to discharge the onus....."
23. The defendants 1 to 4/appellants argue that the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL) board is not at fault, and the incident in question occurred due to the negligence of the 5th defendant. In support of their stance, they produced T.Venkata Tulasi Ram, Assistant Engineer from Kaikalur, as DW.1. His testimony during cross-examination revealed that he previously held the position of Assis- 3 1998 (1) Civ. LJ 670 : 1997 AIHC 3631 (MP) 4 2001 LawSuit (MP) 329 10 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013 tant Divisional Engineer (A.D.E.) Operation Distribution-I in Vijayawada. He clarified that he lacked personal knowledge about the incident, was not an eyewitness to it, and was unaware of the contents of the written state- ment as well as the reply to a legal notice. Notably, the defendants 1 to 4/appellants did not provide an explanation for not calling upon officials who possessed direct knowledge of the case details to testify. As per DW.1's testimony, at the village level, the Junior Line Man (J.L.M.) is re- sponsible for maintaining the departmental lines. According to departmen- tal regulations, a J.L.M., is assigned around 4 to 5 villagers, and one lineman oversees ten villages.
24. Regarding DW.1's testimony on this matter, he indicated that ser- vice connection SC.No.119 was established on April 3, 1985, and it ran in contact with a telephone pole. The 5th defendant who is examined as DW.2. He testified that it is the duty of the defendants 1 to 4 to see the people would enjoy the electricity without any repairs and it is purely their negligence in non-responding to effect the repairs, the occurrence took place. In the cross examination, DW.2 admitted that the electrical service wire of PW.1 and his service wire are from one electrical pole. He pur- chased the insulated service wire and the Department charged the same by connecting to the electric pole near to his house. He did not file any document to show the giving of complaint to the Department to rectify the defects. DW.2 did not dispute the plaintiffs' case regarding the damage to the wires insulation. It is evident from the record that due to damage in the wire's insulation, the supply ended up reaching the telephone pole and 11 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013 a Galvanized Iron (G.I.) wire that was affixed between the telephone pole and another pole. This G.I., wire traversed over the bathroom area, and as a result, the current flowed through the G.I., wire. DW.1 clarified that the Electricity department personnel cannot be held accountable for the insu- lation damage to the service wire.
25. The exchange of notices also portrays the positions adopted by both parties involved in the suit. In the notice Ex.A.6, issued on behalf of de- fendants 1 to 4 through their Advocate Mr. P.Ramakrishna, it is conveyed that due to the fastening of the service wire, the insulation of the service wire associated with the 5th defendant sustained damage. It resulted in electricity passing to the telephone pole, which had a steel wire attached to it for hanging wet clothes. The other end of this steel wire was con- nected to a bamboo pole. The plaintiffs referenced Ex.A.8, a copy of the charge sheet, wherein it is also observed that the insulation of the service wire had been compromised. Consequently, a current flowed from the tel- ephone pole to the opposite end of the G.I., wire. There is no indication in the records that the 5th defendant informed the officials of the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL) about the damage inflicted upon the service wire. By attributing blame to the 5th defendant, defendants 1 to 4 cannot evade their responsibility.
26. The defendants assert that the Electricity Department does not have responsibility for the internal electrical wiring within customers' homes. It is commonly understood that individual customers require assistance in connecting their service wire connections. According to DW.1's account, in 12 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013 line with departmental rules and procedures, the Electricity Department is not tasked with maintaining the service wire connections within custom- ers' homes. However, it is the responsibility of the Electricity Department to inspect the service connection wires that belong to the customers. The records confirm that the 5th defendant, who is the consumer, failed to properly manage this service wire, and defendants 1 to 4 also neglected to inspect the consumer's service connection wire adequately. Defendants 1 to 4 exhibited negligence in their failure to effectively oversee the inspec- tion of service wires. There is no indication in the records that the de- ceased's negligence played a role in their coming into contact with the electrical supply. The service connection wire traversed over the room of PW.1's son-in-law, intended for the residential use of the 5th defendant.
27. In a decision reported in M.P. Electricity Board vs Shail Kumar5, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply elec- tric energy in a particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being who gets unknowingly trapped in it, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the sup- plier of the electric energy.
8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under the law of torts to com- pensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespec- tive of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the man- agers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such a person is known, in law, as "strict liability".
5 2002 LawSuit (SC) 35 13 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013
28. The doctrine of strict liability had its origin in English Common Law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher6; Justice Blackburn had observed thus:
"The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."
The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many subsequent decisions in England, and decisions of the apex Court are legion to that effect. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 SC 1480 and a Division Bench in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. V. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, A.I.R. 1987 SC 1690, had followed the principle in Rylands (supra) with approval. The same principle was reiterated in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 2001 SC 485."
29. The Privy Council has observed in Quebec Railway, Light Heat and Power Company Ltd. v. Vandry and others7 that the electricity company is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent. Even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account of a violent wind and high tension current found its way through the low tension cable into the premises of the respondents was held to be not a justifiable defence. Thus, merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road.
30. In Saleema Begum and others vs State of J.K. and others8, the High Court of J & K followed the Apex Court's Judgment in M. C. Mehta v. Union 6 1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330 7 1920 Law Reports Appeal Cases 662 8 2022 LawSuit (J&K) 888 14 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013 of India9, has gone even beyond the principle laid down in "Rylands v. Fletcher" by holding as under:
"We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons work- ing in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and nondelegable duty to the community to en- sure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obli- gation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on ac- count of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. Since the persons harmed on account of the hazardous or in- herently dangerous activity carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or any other re- lated element that caused the harm must be held strictly li- able for causing such harm as a part of the social cost for car- rying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. In Superintending Engineer (Elec.) Operation Circle, Medak vs Jangiti Bhommamma10, wherein the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under:
"14.4 Dealing with the principle enshrined in the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the contention that the initial onus of proof is on the defendants and that the defence is untenable given the principle of strict liability, it is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Motukuri Bheemavvas case (supra).
32. It is manifestly evident that the APSPDCL in Gudivada did not fulfil its duty diligently in managing the service connection wires allotted to consumers. Had they exercised proper caution, the unfortunate loss of 9 1987 AIR(SC) 1086 10 2019(0) ACJ 2160 15 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013 human life could have been prevented. It is quite apparent that the negli- gence of the APSPDCL in Gudivada is well established. The conclusions reached by the trial court in this regard can be affirmed.
33. The trial court's observation is indeed accurate in noting that the Electricity board bears the responsibility of inspecting the electricity ser- vice wires of its customers. It becomes difficult to accept the assertion of defendants 1 to 4/appellants that the Electricity department is not obliged to examine customers' service connection wires. Relevant materials or regulations under the Electricity Act should be presented before the court to demonstrate that the department has not been entrusted with the duty to check electricity service connections. In the Ex.B.1 Judgment, it is noted that based on the testimony of PW.9 (K. Sundar Rao, Assistant En- gineer, Electricity Department), the service wire of the 5th defendant (ac- cused), identified as SC.No.119 of Lingala village, passed through a tele- phone pole, and its insulation was damaged, resulting in electricity pas- sage. It's a duty of the Electricity department, as a supplier of electricity, to inspect the service connections to verify whether consumers are prop- erly maintaining their service wires. Due to inadequate maintenance of the service wire by the 5th defendant and the evident negligence on the part of the Electricity department, the accident occurred. The electrocutions lead- ing to two deaths transpired because the service wire linked to the 5th de- fendant came into contact with the telephone pole, and the damaged insu- lation facilitated the flow of electricity into the G.I., wire that was attached by the accused. PW.9's deposition also confirms that he tested whether 16 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013 electric current was passing through the telephone pole and verified that it indeed was. It's generally recognized that a consumer can receive the sup- ply as per their request only if they enter into an agreement containing the terms specified by the Board. Since these terms have been formulated us- ing statutory authority granted to the Board, the agreement is inherently statutory in nature. The department has not produced the agreement exe- cuted by the parties or any template to demonstrate their exclusion from liability in the event of a consumer's failure to properly care for service connections.
34. After thoroughly reviewing all the aspects at hand, it becomes un- avoidable to reach a conclusion regarding negligence demonstrated by the APSPDCL officials in Gudivada with respect to the upkeep of the service connection wires, which ultimately acted as the catalyst for the incident under consideration. Hence, this Court concludes that the arguments ad- vanced on behalf of the appellants, asserting the absence of negligence on the part of the Electricity Board officials, cannot be accepted and must be dismissed as unsustainable. For the reasons mentioned earlier, this Court determines that the defenses put forward by the defendants are ineffective and that their claims of not being liable to provide compensation lack merit and warrant rejection. These contentions are consequently refuted. The lower court, after due examination of the pleadings and evidence and a sound application of legal principles, has appropriately determined that the demise of the deceased can be exclusively attributed to the negligence exhibited by the officials of the APSPDCL in Gudivada, along with the 5 th 17 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013 defendant. In light of this perspective, this Court finds it fitting to assert that the defendants 1 to 5 jointly and severally liable to provide compensa- tion to the respondents/plaintiffs, considering the loss sustained as a re- sult of their negligent act.
35. After careful consideration, the trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence. There is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different con- clusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court. The findings arrived at by the trial Court are absolutely correct, and the appellants have shown no justifiable reasons for arriving at different conclusions, the view taken by the trial court does not call for any interference. I agree with the con- clusion reached by the trial Court. Accordingly, the points are answered.
36. As a result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed without costs by con- firming the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.68 of 2010 (old O.S.No.24 of 2008), dated 11.12.2012 by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Gudivada.
37. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 28.08.2023 SAK 18 TMR, J A.S.No.276 of 2013 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO. 276 OF 2013 DATE: 28.08.2023 SAK