Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Apseb And Ors. vs Neenavath Bhuli @ Lakshmi And Ors. on 19 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(2)ALD476, 2007(4)ALT664
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. When Mr. Neenavath Sakru, who is an agriculturist of a village in Medak District, was proceeding on 11-6-1997, on his bicycle to a nearby town, by name Ramayampet, a service wire, taken out from a pole to a bore-well of the 8th respondent herein, was hanging in a lower level, across a cart track, on which Sakru was travelling. On coming into contact with it, he died of electrocution. His legal representatives filed O.S. No. 28 of 1999 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Medak, claiming a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/-, towards damages, on account of his death. They filed the suit as indigent persons. It was pleaded that the death occurred on account of electrocution, which is solely attributable to the negligence on the part of the appellants herein, who were impleaded as defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. Through its judgment, dated 16-4-2002, the trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 2,42,200/-. The appellants filed A.S. No. 67 of 2004 in the Court of III District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Medak. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal through its judgment, dated 8-4-2005. Hence, this second appeal.
2. Sri V. Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, submits that the consumer, the 8th respondent herein, had meddled with the service wire and instead of keeping it in a safe height, left it negligently to hang at a very lower level. He contends that the appellants cannot be held liable to pay compensation for the negligence exhibited by the 8th respondent.
3. Sri I. Prabhakar Reddy, earned Counsel for respondents 1 to 7, on the other hand, submits that it is the duty of the appellants to ensure that the supply to a consumer is made in a proper and safe manner upto the point where the meter and other equipments are fixed and the consumer can be held liable only for any acts and omissions in using the power beyond that point. He contends that the electrocution occurred only on account of the fact that the appellants did not provide proper poles of adequate height.
4. The death of the deceased, on account of electrocution, was not at all in dispute. The whole controversy was as to whether the appellants herein were, or the 8th respondent was, guilty of such negligence. On their behalf, respondents 1 to 7 examined PWs. 1 to 3 and filed Exs.A. 1 to A. 16. These documents include First Information Report in Crime No. 68 of 1997, filed in relation to the incident and the post-mortem report etc. On behalf of the appellants, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court framed two issues, namely, whether the death of the deceased was on account of negligence on the part of the appellants herein and whether respondents 1 to 7 are entitled for compensation.
5. The first issue was held against the appellants and on the second issue, it undertook assessment of the damages, on account of the death of the deceased and decreed the unit for a sum of Rs. 2,24,200/-.
6. In A.S. No. 67 of 2004 filed by the appellants herein, the lower appellate Court had undertaken an extensive discussion, with respect to those two aspects and affirmed the decree of the trial Court.
7. The distance between the last electric pole and the bore-well of the 8th respondent is said to be about 150 yards. In the matter of fixation of the liability for any accident that takes place, involving the service wire between the pole and the bore-well, much would depend upon the question as to whether who among the appellants on the one hand and the 8th respondent on the other hand, are under obligation to ensure the proper and safe installation of the same. It is not in dispute that the appellants are the exclusive operators and authorities to regulate the supply upto the point where the meter and other equipment are fixed. It is from that point onwards, the consumer would be entitled to utilize the power according to his needs. Providing service connection from the pole to the place where the meter is fixed, is the obligation, and in fact, the exclusive privilege of the appellants. The definition of 'service line' under Sub-section (61) of Section 2 of the Electricity Act, 2003, supports this.
8. Once it has emerged that the electrocution occurred on account of hanging of the wire from the last pole to the meter, fitted at the bore-well, the appellants cannot escape the liability. In M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar , the Supreme Court held that it is the obligation of the power supplier to ensure safety in the matter of providing electricity supply. The Courts below have appreciated the matter from the proper perspective and this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same.
9. The trial Court granted interest at 12% per annum. Basically, the rate of interest provided for under Section 34 C.P.C., must not exceed 6% per annum. It is only where the transactions are commercial, in nature, the rate of interest can exceed 6% per annum. The present claim does not arise out of commercial transaction. Therefore, the rate of interest reduced to 6% per annum. In all other respects, the decree passed by the trial Court shall hold good.
10. The second appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.