Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. After a thorough evaluation of the evidence on record, both Courts concurrently concluded that on 08.07.1991, at 2.00 PM, while Poleesu was grazing cattle, he came into contact with a live electrical wire and died due to electrocution. In contrast, the Defendants disputed the Plaintiff's case, asserting that the department's negligence did not cause the death.

22. The 1st Appellate Court relied on the decision reported in 1998 (1) ALT 67 (Motukuri Bheemavva and others V. A.P.S.E.B through its Chairman, Hyderabad and another), wherein the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the burden is on the electricity board to prove want of negligence and not on the claimants.

36. The reading of the documents placed before the Court clearly shows that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the A.P.S.E.B. officials. When it contends that the incident happened due to the negligence of the deceased, the Defendants have to place necessary evidence before the 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.

37. 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.