Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Appeal vs M.P. Electricity on 1 September, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
APPEAL SUIT NO.170 OF 2010
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 26.10.2009 in O.S. No.107 of 2008 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short, 'trial court'). The respondents, who are the plaintiffs, filed the suit in O.S. No.107 of 2008 seeking compensation of Rs.10,05,000/- for the death of Addala Ankaiah @ Venkaiah (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the deceased'), who died due to electrocution.
2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
(a) The 1st plaintiff is the wife, and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased. The deceased, who was the main earner for their family, owned one acre of the land, was earning Rs.300/- per day through daily wage labour, and supported the family financially.
(b) On the 3rd of September, 2006, the deceased's cattle were grazing in the fields. Around 05:00 PM, the weather turned bad, prompting the deceased to proceed to the house with cattle. While en route, heavy rain and strong winds ensued.
2 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010 The electric wires connecting the pump sets in the fields were torn down and fell to the ground. Consequently, live cables came into contact with the deceased, resulting in his immediate death due to electrocution. The cattle made their way back home. The plaintiffs searched for the deceased and noticed his dead body near the fields. The 2nd plaintiff informed the police, leading to the registration of a case (Cr.No.122 of 2006) under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) at Naddipadu Police Station. The defendants, who are officers of APSPDCL, are being held responsible for negligence that led to the deceased's death. As a result, the plaintiffs are seeking compensation of Rs. 10,05,000/- from the defendants.
4. Defendants 1 and 2 adopted the 3rd defendant's written statement and contended that there was no negligence on their part in laying and maintaining the electric wires. While coming back from the fields during the storm and rain, the deceased should have exercised caution to observe the cut and fallen wires, thereby averting the unfortunate incident. Consequently, the defendants are not obligated to pay the heavy compensation claimed by the plaintiffs except to the extent of the amount stipulated by the rules of their department. The plaintiffs' claim is highly excessive and arbitrary, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any amount. The accident occurred due to the Act of God.
3 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether there is negligence and lack of due care on the part of the defendant department resulting in the accident and death of the deceased on 3.9.06, and if so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of compensation of Rs.10,05,000/- against the defendants?
(2) Whether the contention of the defendants that the cause of death is not for any negligence but for Vismajor (act of God), and thereby, they are not liable for compensation sustainable?
(3) To what relief?
6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined, and no documents were marked.
7. After the completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court partly allowed the suit with proportionate costs, directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay the compensation at Rs.3,24,000/- to the plaintiffs with interest, thereafter at 6% p.a., from 15.10.2008 the date of suit till the date of deposit.
8. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL representing the appellants/defendants, argued that the incident was a result of heavy rain and lighting and the department cannot be held responsible for any negligence; the trial Court erred in placing the burden 4 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010 on the defendants to prove their lack of negligence in maintaining the electrical wire; the trial Court ought to have seen that the appellants took appropriate measures for the maintenance of the electrical cables. He further contends that the incident was caused by an act of God. In absence of evidence supporting the claim regarding the deceased' earnings, the trial Court is not justified in awarding compensation, which is highly excessive.
9. Per contra, Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel representing the respondents/plaintiffs, contends that the trial Court correctly appreciated the case facts and came to a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the trial Court do not want any modification.
10. About 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 following points would arise for determination:
1) Was there negligence on the Electricity Board's part to make it liable to pay the compensation?
2) Was the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal just and reasonable, or does it require modification?
3) Was the Judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference?
POINT NO.1:
11. It is not disputed that the 1st plaintiff is the wife; plaintiffs 2 and 3 are sons of the deceased Ankaiah @ Venkaiah. The 1 st plaintiff, PW.1 and 5 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010 PW.2 (P.Venkateswarlu) testified that on 03.07.2006, the deceased took his cattle to fields for grazing purposes; at about 5.00 PM, he noticed weather became inclement and began to come with his cattle and there was heavy rain and gale and electric wires connecting pump sets cut and fell on the ground, the live wire came into contact with the deceased, and he fell and died instantaneously; they found the dead body on the ground near the fields.
12. In the written statement, the defendants have taken a specific plea that the deceased should have exercised caution, while coming back from the fields during the storm and rain, and that he should have been attentive enough to notice the severed and fallen wires, thereby preventing the unfortunate accident. To substantiate their claim, the plaintiffs have relied on Ex.A.1 (the death certificate of deceased), Ex.A.2 (a true copy of First Information Report), Ex.A.3 (a true copy of postmortem certificate), Ex.A.4 (a true copy of panchanama) and Ex.A.5 (a final report from the case diary, dated 30.10.2006). These documents provide support for the plaintiffs' version of events. The documents collectively reinforce the plaintiffs' case, indicating that on the 4th of September, 2006, around 9:00 AM, the deceased was on his way back home from the fields. During this time, there was heavy rainfall, and he arrived at a location with eucalyptus trees belonging to A. Narasaiah. Here, an electrical wire fell from a pole and accidentally touched the deceased's legs, resulting in an electric shock that caused his immediate death on the spot. The trial 6 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010 Court's accurate observation, which is undisputed by the opposing side, recognizes that it's an established fact that the deceased's death was due to electrocution. This incident transpired due to the combination of gale- force winds and heavy rain, leading to the electric wires being torn down and falling onto the fields. Tragically, while the deceased was traversing that area, he came into contact with the live wire and died instantly.
13. In light of these facts, the matter at hand pertains to whether the defendant's negligence led to the occurrence of the death of the deceased, consequently warranting consideration for compensation to be granted to the plaintiffs.
14. In Prafulla Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa 1, 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 conduct of human affairs or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
15. In Ramesh Kumar Nayak v. Union of India2, the Apex Court considered 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) 7 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010
16. 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 affairs, 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.
17. In a decision reported in Shail Kumari vs. M.P. Electricity Board4, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed thus:
"8. xxx The standard of care required of a body like the Electricity Board is high due 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 evidence of 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....."
18. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 contends that the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL) board is not at fault, and the incident occurred due to the deceased's negligence.
3 1998 (1) Civ. LJ 670 : 1997 AIHC 3631 (MP) 4 2001 LawSuit (MP) 329 8 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010
19. According to the testimony of DW.1 (K.Anji Reddy), who is Assistant Engineer Operation at APSPDCL, Maddipadu, the incident involving the cutting and falling of electric wires occurred due to a force majeure event (vis major) and unanticipated heavy rains, along with a strong gale, which were beyond their department's control; the department cannot be held responsible for any lack of care or negligence in this particular incident; while the deceased was returning from the fields during the storm and rain, he should have been cautious enough to notice the severed and fallen wires, thereby preventing the unfortunate accident. During cross- examination, DW.1 clarified that he did not witness the condition of the cables immediately after they fell during the occurrence of the accident. He stated that their department installs electrical wires to withstand gales, storms, and heavy rain. However, he personally does not have knowledge of the specific precautions taken by their department to prevent electric lines from being severed due to rain. Based on the provided evidence, it can be inferred that it is the responsibility of the defendants' department to install electric lines capable of withstanding gales, storms, and heavy rains. If such electric lines were indeed installed to endure these weather conditions, the incident in question likely would not have occurred.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari5 held that the facts of that case are akin to those of this case. That was a case where the deceased was riding a bicycle at night and 5 (2002) 2 SCC 162: A.I.R. 2002 SC 551 9 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010 returning from his factory. There had been rain, and the road was partially inundated with water. The cyclist did not notice the live wire on the road, and hence, he rode the vehicle over the wire, which twitched and snatched him, and he was instantaneously electrocuted. The main defence raised by the defendant was that the wire in question had been used by somebody to siphon energy for his use and said the act was done clandestinely behind the back of the Electricity Board. The line got unfastened from the hook, and it fell on the road over which the cycle driven by the deceased slid, resulting in instantaneous electrocution. In those facts, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"7. It is admitted that the responsibility to supply electric 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 electric energy supplier. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such a diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road, the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have an extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
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 compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the
10 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010 foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. In law, the liability cast on such a person is known as 'strict liability'. It differs from the liability that arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way, i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that could be done to avoid the harm, he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. However, such consideration is not relevant in strict liability cases where the defendant is held responsible irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.
21. 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 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. RamanbhaiPrabhatbhai, 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."
22. The cause of the deceased's death is shock due to electrocution. All injuries are ante-mortem. The death occurred due to an electric wire that came into contact with the deceased. The APSPDCL Board must maintain the electricity lines without causing any injuries or harm to the general public and protect the life of the general public passing under it. 6 1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330 11 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010 Considering the material on record, negligence on the part of the Electricity Board is presumed. Live broken electric wires or hanging electric wires carrying high-tension energy are generally not found. If such a thing happens, a prima facie inference can be drawn that there has been some carelessness on the part of the appellant in transmitting electric energy or adequately maintaining the transmission lines.
23. In Saleema Begum and others vs. State of J.K. and others7, the High Court of J & K followed the Apex Court's Judgment in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India8, has gone even beyond the principle laid down in "Rylands v. Fletcher" by holding as follows:
"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 working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure 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 obligation 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 account 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 inherently 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 related element that caused the harm must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost for carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity." (Emphasis supplied) 7 2022 LawSuit (J&K) 888 8 1987 AIR(SC) 1086 12 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010
24. In Superintending Engineer (Elec.) Operation Circle, Medak vs Jangiti Bhommamma9, 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).
25. The Privy Council has observed in Quebec Railway, Light Heat and Power Company Ltd. v. Vandry and others10 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.
26. Undoubtedly, the authorities bear a public duty to inspect and ensure the proper maintenance of electricity lines. This verification or inspection is anticipated to occur in areas accessible to the general public. This Court holds the perspective that during conditions of heavy gale and rain, it was the responsibility of the defendant's department to promptly halt the power supply. Unfortunately, they failed to take this action. If 9 2019(0) ACJ 2160 10 1920 Law Reports Appeal Cases 662 13 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010 they had been vigilant in stopping the power supply, the death of the deceased could likely have been prevented. While the deceased was hastening back home with the buffaloes, he could not have anticipated the falling of a live wire. In practical terms, during a situation of intense rain and gale while he was in the fields, it cannot be criticized for him to hurry back home. Under such circumstances, noticing a live wire falling on the road would have been a difficult task.
27. The reading of the documents placed before the trial Court clearly shows that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the APSPDCL officials. When it contends that the incident happened due to the negligence of the deceased, the defendants have to place necessary evidence before the trial Court, based on which it is expected to give its conclusion. As contended, the defendants placed no material to show the incident occurred due to the deceased's negligence.
28. Taking this perspective into account, this Court deems it appropriate to affirm that defendants 1 to 3 bear joint and several liable to provide compensation to the respondents/plaintiffs, taking into consideration the loss incurred due to their negligent conduct.
29. After careful consideration, the trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence. There is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court regarding the occurrence of the incident due to the defendant's negligence. The findings arrived at by the trial Court are correct, and the appellants have shown no 14 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010 justifiable reasons for arriving at different conclusions; the view taken by the trial court does not call for any interference. I agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court. Accordingly, the point is answered. POINTS NO.2 AND 3:
30. In the event of a breach of public or statutory duty or negligence, compensation can be fixed for the department's employees. Consequently, the application of vicarious liability can be invoked. There is no specific method of computing the compensation provided under the Electricity Act, and the rules framed there for death due to electrocution. However, as the death has been caused due to negligence and illegal use of electricity, it would be appropriate to apply the method as provided for in the Motor Vehicle Act for computation.
31. According to the plaintiff's case, the deceased was a daily wage labourer. PWs 1 and 2 stated in their evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.300/- per day, but they have no documents to show his earnings. In a case like this, where there is no specific evidence as to the income of the deceased, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lakshmi Devi and Others vs Mohammad Tabber11 held that, in today's world, even common labour can earn Rs.100/- per day. Based on the above principle, this Court safely assesses the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-.
11 2008 ACJ 488
15 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010
32. As per Ex.A.3-postmortem certificate and Ex.A.4-inquest report, the deceased was 48 years. There is no serious dispute regarding the deceased's age.
33. In the public interest litigation for compensation and justice to persons who died and were injured in TISCOs function on 3.3.89 in Jamshedpur by sudden fire, the Supreme Court-appointed Justice Y.V.Chandrachud to assess and report; Report given after about seven years; Claimants contending that system of multiplier in assessing compensation is not proper and considering the report and three decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa & Ors. V. State of Bihar &Ors.12, observed that:
The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Thereafter, it should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years of purchase. It was also stated that much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis. In that region, arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master since there are so often many imponderables.
The Hon'ble Apex Further observed that:
........the multiplier method is of universal application and is being accepted and adopted in India by Courts, including the Supreme Court and as such, it would be meet and proper to apply the said method for determining the quantum of compensation.12
2001 ACJ 1735 16 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010
34. Considering the parameters indicated in the Judgment and as schedule-II of the Motor Vehicle Act pertains to fatal accidents, this Court is inclined to apply schedule (U/sec.163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988) to assess the compensation.
35. In this regard, the trial Court observed that as per schedule II of M.V.Act, for the age group of 45-50 years, the multiplier is '13'. After deduction of 1/3rd of the earnings, the trial Court assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.3,12,000/- and also awarded Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and, accordingly, held that the trial Court awarded the compensation of Rs.3,24,000/- and apportioned the compensation among the plaintiffs.
36. After considering the material on record, this Court views that the trial Court has granted just and reasonable compensation of Rs.3,24,000/-. Given the discussion mentioned above in the Appeal, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present Appeal. The plaintiffs have not questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court by filing an Appeal or cross-objection. The trial Court fixed the just compensation based on the evidence on record. As such, it isn't easy to appreciate the stand taken by the defendants regarding the quantum of compensation.
37. Given the preceding discussion, the view taken by the trial court does not call for any interference, and the impugned Decree and 17 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010 Judgment passed by the trial court is upheld. Accordingly, the points are answered.
38. As a result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed without costs by confirming the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.107 of 2008, dated 26.10.2009 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ongole.
39. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 01.09.2023 SAK 18 TMR, J A.S. No.170 of 2010 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO. 170 OF 2010 DATE: 01.09.2023 SAK