Assistant Ungineer vs Thokala Sahadev Goud

This appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.06.2015 in O.S.No.92 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, at Mahabubnagar.

The said suit was filed for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Thokala Sridhar Goud (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) due to electrocution. Initially, O.S.No.46 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Mahabubnagar, was filed claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, thereafter, the said suit was amended and the claim amount was enhanced from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- vide O.S.No.92 of 2014. The trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 01.06.2015 awarded an amount of Rs.9,65,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only) to the plaintiffs with future interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit i.e.,10.03.2011 till the date of realization.

The brief facts of the case are that on the evening of 25.05.2010, there was heavy gale and 11 KV Malleboinpally feeder and conductor snapped and fell on the ground near TNGOs Office, at Jadcherla. On noticing the same, the Officials of defendants alerted the public to not handle any electric lines and equipments. As precaution, all the other supporting wires were disconnected and the public was alerted to inform the Officials if any electrical issue arises. In the meanwhile, at about 7 P.M., the deceased was driving his motor bike and without noticing the live electric wire in a rash and negligent manner while talking over cell phone with his friend, he got electrocuted. As a result, the deceased sustained severe burns and while he was being to shifted to the Government Hospital, Badepally, he died on the way.

On the one hand, the contention of plaintiffs is that as the incident occurred due to negligent act of defendants, they are liable to pay compensation towards the death of deceased, whereas, on the other hand, the defendants who are appellants herein, filed written statement denying the allegations of the suit, including the age and income of the deceased and also the manner of occurrence of incident. It was specifically contended that the incident occurred due to negligence of deceased and as there was heavy gale at that time, the same is ‘Act of God’. As such, prayed to dismiss O.S.No.92 of 2014.

Basing on the submissions made by either side, the trial Court framed the following issues:

“I. Whether the deceased T.Sridhar Goud was not dependent to anybody ?

II. Whether the said deceased died due to ‘Act of God’ ?

III. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree to get compensation from the defendants as prayed for ?

IV. To what relief ?”

The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were not dependants of the deceased as plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are parents and plaintiff No.3 is the sister of deceased, respectively, and plaintiff No. 2 is wife of plaintiff No.1.

To prove the case, on behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and one Nagole Rajender Reddy, alleged eye witness for the accident, was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of defendants, V.Srinivasulu, Assistant Divisional Engineer, was examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked.

Basing on the material and evidence placed on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that defendants are responsible for the incident, as such, awarded compensation to plaintiffs, as stated supra.

Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the defendants stating that there is no negligence on the part of the defendants – Authority, and the incident occurred due to heavy gale and negligence of the deceased.

Heard Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of appellants/defendants, and Sri Nallavally Madhusudhan Yadav, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs.

Learned standing counsel appearing for appellants/defendants would submit that there is no negligence on the part of the appellants and the trial Court erroneously fixed the liability on them without appreciating the fact that the incident is an Act of God and due to strong gale and wind, the electric wire got snapped from the pole and in an negligent manner, the deceased caught hold of wires and was electrocuted. Further, the trial Court erred in not considering the steps taken by appellants to prevent accidents by warning the public to be cautious, have also disconnected electricity and strung new lines. It was also contended that without basing on any material or evidence on record, the trial Court came to conclusion with regard to the earning capacity of the deceased. As such, prayed this Court to set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2015 by allowing the present appeal.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs would submit that there are no infirmities in the impugned judgment and the trial Court has rightly awarded compensation to respondents/plaintiffs as the deceased lost his life due to sheer negligence of appellants. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss the present appeal.

Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that there is no dispute that the deceased died due to electrocution when a live wire of 33/11 KV snapped and fell on him. The contention of learned standing counsel appearing for appellants/defendants is that the incident is an Act of God, whereas, the contention of learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs is that the incident occurred due to negligence on the part of appellants – Authority.

To prove the negligence on the part of appellants/defendants, on behalf of respondents/plaintiffs, PWs.1 and 2 were examined.

 PW.1 is plaintiff No.2 and wife of plaintiff No.1 who is the mother of the deceased. During the pendency of suit, plaintiff No.1 died. PW.1 deposed about the occurrence of incident.

 PW.2 supported the evidence of PW.1.

On behalf of respondents/plaintiffs, Exs.A1 to A11 were marked.

 Ex.A1 – certified copy of FIR in Crime No.148/2010.

 Ex.A2 – certified copy of inquest panchanama.

 Ex.A3 – certified copy of post mortem examination certificate.

 Ex.A4 – certified copy of crime detail form.

 Ex.A5 – certified copy of final report.

 Ex.A6 – copy of legal notice issued by plaintiffs to the defendants.

 Ex.A7 – courier receipts dated 05.01.2011.

 Ex.A8 – acknowledgement cards.

 Ex.A9 – original Degree, Bonafide and Conduct Certificates of deceased.

 Ex.A10 – original memorandum of marks of intermediate education.

 Ex.A11 – original SSC certificate cum memorandum of marks.

On behalf of appellants/defendants, DW.1 who is the Assistant Divisional Engineer, was examined. He deposed that all precautionary steps were taken to make the public aware that electric wires got snapped and fell on ground. Further, the incident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. No documents were marked on their behalf.

On going through the Exs.A2 and A3, it can be said that Exs.A2 and A3 fortifies the occurrence of incident and the death of deceased and Exs.A4 and A5 would reveal that the accident occurred due to negligence of appellants/defendants. Further, according to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 – alleged eye witness, it is clear that the incident occurred due to the negligence of appellants/defendants. Therefore, it is clear that there is no illegality committed by the trial Court in arriving at conclusion that there was negligence on the part of appellants/defendants.

Further, as per Ex.A11, it is noted that on the day of incident, the deceased was aged about 20 years. As per Ex.A9 the deceased was pursuing 2nd year of under graduation. According to plaintiffs, by the day of incident, the deceased was working as Coach in Power Gym, at Jadcherla, and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, it is noticed that no evidence is adduced to prove the same. As such, the trial Court, basing on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Mansoor and Another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another (2013) ACJ 2849 considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.1,20,000/-per annum.

As the deceased was bachelor by the date of incident, 50% of the actual income was deducted for personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.60,000/-. Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 basing on the age of the deceased, the trial Court considered the multiplier “14” to calculate the amount towards loss of dependency, which comes to (60,000 x 14) = Rs.8,40,000/-. As plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are father, mother and sister of the deceased, respectively, Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection. An amount of Rs.25,000/- was also awarded towards funeral and rituals expenditure. Therefore, in total, the trial Court rightly awarded an amount of Rs.9,65,000/- to plaintiffs.

In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality committed by the trial Court in awarding Rs.9,65,000/- towards compensation to respondents/plaintiffs and there are no merits in the appeal, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.