Telangana High Court
The Apseb, A.P. Transco, vs Balugu Komuraiah on 20 October, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
APPEAL SUIT No.2071 OF 2000
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed by the defendant, A.P.Transco, against the decree and the judgment of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in O.S.No.113 of 1996, dated 31.01.2000, granting a decree for Rs.1,90,000/- with interest and costs.
2. The parties are described as the plaintiffs and defendant as arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the respondents herein, that they are the legal representatives of Smt.Balugu Saramma. On 25.07.1995 at about 8.00 PM said Saramma along with Balugu Pochaiah, Katkari Vodelu and Gouda Ravi was passing through the road in Kurmawada of Varikole Village, the live electrical overhead line was snapped and fallen on the ground. They came into contact with it and all of them died on the spot. The Village Administrative Officer of Vorikole reported the matter to the police at Parkal and the same was registered as Crime No.107 of 1995 and 2 a copy of which was marked as Ex.A.1. Inquest and post-mortem was also conducted confirming the death of deceased by electrocution. Exs.A-2 and A-5 are panchanama and Post-mortem report. Later, the employees of the defendant-Corporation visited the spot and removed the hanging wire. The death of these persons was caused due to negligence and callousness of the defendant- Corporation in erecting and maintaining the overhead lines and its allied equipment in the village. The plaintiffs are the husband and children of deceased. It is stated that the deceased had participated in the agricultural operations and earning Rs.24,000/- per annum and contributed the same to the maintenance of the family. The deceased was aged about 35 years. Therefore, they claimed Rs.2,70,000/- towards damages.
4. The appellant/defendant-Corporation filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The defendant also denied the factum of death of deceased by electrocution by coming into contact with live wire. The dead bodies were shifted by the relatives of the deceased in undue haste. By the time officials of the defendant-Corporation came, the dead bodies were shifted. 3 During their inspection, there was no snapping of electrical lines and over hanging at any place. The death of deceased was not caused due to electrocution. The plaintiffs filed the above suit in order to gain money illegally. It is also stated that there was no negligence and callousness on the part of the officials of the defendant-Corporation in erecting or maintaining the electrical wires. Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The plaintiffs, in proof of their case, examined the husband of deceased as PW.1 and examined Pw.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A-8. On the other hand, the defendant-Corporation examined DW.1. No documents were marked on its behalf.
6. The trial Court after considering the evidence placed on record and in view of the admitted fact that deceased died due to electrocution arrived at the annual income of Rs.15,000/- and applying the decision reported in Thirlok Chandra v. U.P.S.R.T.C.Corporation1 calculated loss of earnings at Rs.1,58,689-15 paise and added Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate, arrived at Rs.1,90,000/- and granted a decree for Rs.1,90,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the 1 1996 A.C.J.831 4 date of suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said decision, A.P.Transco preferred this appeal contending that the trial Court failed to appreciate either fact or law in correct perspective. It did not consider the fact that there was no incident happened as narrated by the plaintiffs. There was no negligence leading to death of deceased. The compensation granted by the trial Court and also interest at higher side. Therefore, it prayed to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and allow the appeal.
7. The points that arise for determination are:
1. Whether late Saramma died due to electrocution on 25.07.1955?
2. Whether there was any negligence on the part of A.P.Transco in maintaining electric lines?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount?
8. It is the case of the plaintiffs that live electrical over-head line got snapped and fallen on the ground and it was hanging and therefore, four persons namely; Balugu Pochaiah, Katkari Vodelu and Gouda Ravi along with deceased Balugu Saramma got electrocuted. PW.1, who is the husband of deceased Saramma in his evidence specifically deposed that when the deceased was 5 passing through the street of Kurmawada, she came into contact with live electric wire hanging at that particular place and was electrocuted. PW.2 who is the panch witness also supported the evidence of PW.1. However, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is convincing. DW.1 who is examined on behalf of defendant- Corporation has also not disputed the death of deceased along with three others due to electrocution. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and DW.1 clearly establishes the fact that the deceased Saramma died due to electrocution.
9. So far as the negligence on the part of A.P.Transco in maintaining the electrical lines is concerned, the defendant examined DW.1 on their behalf. In the cross-examination, DW.1 admitted that Assistant Engineer filed preliminary report and final report. In his cross-examination, he admitted that "I do not remember whether it is mentioned in the preliminary report that wire got snapped and four persons were electrocuted due to it. In view of the fact that the report that was admittedly prepared was not filed, the trial Court has drawn an adverse inference and found the contention of plaintiffs to be correct and the electric wire infact 6 got snapped there and four persons got electrocuted and held that there was negligence on the part of A.P.Transco.
10. In K.G.Jagannath v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P2, this Court held that burden is on the Electricity Board to prove that there was no negligence on its part. When the plaintiffs could prove that the death was due to electrocution, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence on its part.
11. It is settled law that in a 'claim' for damages in regard to fatal accident against A.P.State Electricity Board, the compensation could be worked out re-coursing to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
12. It is in the evidence of PW.1, who is the husband of deceased, that deceased Saramma was aged 35 years doing agriculture and was earning member of the family. It was pleaded in the plaint that deceased used to earn Rs.24,000/- per annum. PW.1 had deposed that his wife's annual income was Rs.15,000/-. The plaintiff's family owned one acre of land and they were cultivating the same and getting income on the agriculture also. Basing on the said 2 1998(1) A.L.T. 67 7 evidence and also after taking into consideration of the provisions of the M.V.Act, that in the absence of any evidence, the income at Rs.15,000/- per annum can be fixed for non-earning member, it has fixed the income of deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. Since the family of deceased was found to be seven, 2/7th units were deducted towards personal expenses at Rs.2,143/- and thereby, the net income comes to Rs.10,715/- per year and by applying appropriate multiplier 14.81, the trial Court granted an amount of Rs.1,58,689.15 paise towards loss of earnings. Besides that, the trial Court has granted Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of estate, altogether, it would come to Rs.1,88,589-15 paise. As the deceased Saramma was admittedly an agriculturist, some more amount was awarded by the trial Court and totally, an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was awarded towards compensation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is on high side.
13. The plaintiffs did not file any cross appeal. The damages that were awarded are, therefore, reasonable. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence available on record, granted compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-. Therefore, the compensation is 8 adequate. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, no costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 20.10.2022 Nvl