D.LAXMI vs CHAIRMAN, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE complainant is the wife of late Yadaiah, who will be referred to, hereinafter, as deceased who claims that her husband was dealing in sale of fruits in the villages as well as at Hyderabad. On one such return trips from Hyderabad to his village, Parpelli, the deceased boarded the R.T.C. Bus bearing No. AP 9Z 1-2776 on 27.8.1996 and loaded fruit bags on the top of the bus on the advice of the bus conductor. Separate charges were also paid for the luggage. After the bus reached Parpelli village, which is the last station/destination of the bus, the driver of the bus stopped it under the loose and live electric wires. THE deceased had to un-load the bags from the top of the bus. While un-loading the goods from the top of the bus, he came into contact with loose and live wires, which were hanging, due to which, he received electric shock and fell down. He was immediately shifted to nearby Government Hospital at Bhongir and thereafter shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, but, he breathed his last on 28.8.1996 at 10.00 p.m.

THE complainant, who is the widow of the deceased has lost her husband and her children also lost their father. She, therefore, claims compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs towards loss of estate, Rs. one lakh towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium and damages together with interest at 15 per cent. The first opposite party Electricity Board, in its written version, stated that the wires were above 18 feet from the ground as per IE Rule 77 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 but the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver in stopping the bus under the electric wires. Even the deceased should have been more alert in un-loading the fruit bags. The Board is not responsible for the accident. There is no negligence on its part.

The second opposite party, APSRTC, filed a separate written version, through their Chief Law Officer, which is one of total denial. It is denied that the deceased travelled in their bus with fruit bags by paying separate charges to the said luggage. It is further denied any negligence on the part of the driver in stopping the bus under the loose and live electric wires. It is also denied that the deceased came into contact with the live wires and received electric shock or fell down. It is further denied that the deceased was shifted to near-by hospital at Bhongir or Gandhi Hospital at Secunderabad. This opposite party is not aware of registration of Cr. No. 26/1996 on the file of P.S. Gundala, Nalgonda District. It is admitted that the bus bearing No. AP 9Z 1-2776 operated from Jubilee Bus Stand to Parpelli on 27.8.1996, but without any complaint. There is no such incident as alleged.

THE complainant examined herself as P.W. 1, besides, examining P.W. 2, the Village Administrative Officer at Parpelli and marked Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-11. THE opposite parties examined R.W. 1, the conductor of the bus, besides, marking Exs. B-1 to B-9. The point that arises for consideration is, whether there is any negligence on the part of the opposite parties, if so, to what extent ?

THE case of the complainant is simple and straight forward. Her husband, the deceased, travelled in AP 9Z 1-2776 on 27.8.1996 from Hyderabad to Parpelli with fruit bags. While un-loading the fruit bags from the top of the bus after the bus reached the destination, the deceased came into contact with loose and live wires, and thus, got electric shock and fell down. He was immediately taken to Bhongir Government Hospital, from where he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and died the next day, as seen from Ex. A-8, death certificate issued by M.R.O. Though, the second opposite party APSRTC, made an un-holy denial of the whole of the incident, however, the first opposite party Electricity Board admitted the incident, but it had thrown the blame on the driver of the RTC bus as well as the deceased, himself for his negligence. The inquest report Ex. A-3 shows that on 27.8.1996 at about 4.00 p.m., the deceased was un-loading the fruit bags from the top of the bus and he came into contact with the electric service wire, due to which, he received electric shock and fell down and suffered injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad on 28.8.1996 at 1.35 a.m., where he was admitted and underwent treatment. But he expired on 28.8.1996 at 10.00 p.m. due to Cardiac Respiratory Arrest. The duty doctors of Gandhi Hospital were present. Therefore, this inquest report dispells all doubts about the cause of death. Originally, the Crime was registered under Cr. No. 26/1996 with P.S. Gundala. Later, it was transferred to P.S. Market, Secunderabad, where he died, as evidenced by FIR Ex. A-6. The Sarpanch also issued a certificate under Ex. A-4, that the deceased died due to the Current Shock and fell down from AP 9Z 1-2776. The Village Administrative Officer, Parpelli also issued a certificate under Ex. A-5, more or less, with the same facts. A registered notice was issued by the complainant to both the opposite parties under Ex. A-9 on 12.11.1996. No reply was given by the second opposite party, but in reply notice given by the first opposite party, under Ex. A-11, they merely attributed the negligence to the RTC driver as well as the deceased. Of course, the complaint under Ex. A-7 was given by the complainant to the Inspector of Police, Gundala.

THE second opposite party, however, filed some documents. Ex. B-1 is a letter from the District Collector requesting the District Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda, to take necessary action, in view of the report of the M.R.O., Gundala dated 24.9.1996. THE M.R.O., in the letter dated 24.9.1996 clearly stated that the deceased died due to Cardiac Arrest and fell down from the bus while collecting the fruit bags, who eventually died in Secunderabad Hospital on 28.8.1996. THE Depot Manager, Nalgonda, addressed a letter dated 18.10.1996 to the Depot Manager, Yadagirigutta under Ex. B-3, requesting him to take action as per the District Collector''s letter, since the vehicle belongs to Depot Manager, Yadagirigutta. Of course, the driver informed the Depot Manager, Yadagirigutta that nothing happened in his bus. So also, the conductor informed the Depot Manager, Yadagirigutta, under Ex. B-5, that nothing happened. However, the driver of the bus who bears No. 252485, APSRTC, Yadagirigutta under Ex. B-6 Statement stated, that the deceased, who boarded on the top of the bus for fruit bags, had come into contact with the live electric wires and fell down, due to which, he was shifted to Bhongir Government Hospital by RTC Staff. Under Ex. B-8 also, the Depot Manager, Yadagirigutta was informed similarly by the Chief Inspector, Yadagirigutta. In view of this material, it is pre-posterous to contend that the deceased did not travel in APSRTC bus nor fell down from the bus, due to electric shock while un-loading the fruit bags. We are, therefore, of the view that there is over-whelming evidence to establish that the deceased died while the bus was stopped, under the loose hanging live wires, by the driver of the RTC bus at Parpelli Bus Stand and the deceased came into contact with the said wire while collecting his fruit bags having travelled in the said bus from Hyderabad, and received electric shock and fell down. We are of the opinion that the driver of the bus and the APSRTC, vicariously, are liable for stopping the bus negligently under a live electric wire over-hanging within the reach of standing passengers on the top of the bus, particularly, when the luggage was placed on the luggage-top. In this connection, the evidence of R.W. 1 is relevant, who admits that he does not know at what height the electric wires are passing at the bus-stand. He further states that the passengers would load the luggage on the top of the bus depending on the size of the luggage and also the rush of the passengers, he would advise them to place the luggage on the luggage top. THErefore, it is clear that the passengers are permitted to keep the luggage on the luggage top and collect it as and when bus reaches the destination. Hence, stopping of the bus under live wire by the driver is certainly an act of negligence, for which, APSRTC is vicariously liable. THE total denial of the incident by the APSRTC smacks artificiality and their anxiety to cover-up the laches.

SO far as the first opposite party Electricity Board is concerned, it is equally liable for keeping the electric wires within the reach of the persons near the Bus Stand, while collecting their luggage from the top of the bus. When it is known, where the bus stand is situated and the buses are likely to stop under the said wires, they should have taken sufficient precaution to raise the height of wires, so that, they would not be within the reach of the passengers who get up to the top of the bus to collect their luggage from the bus-stop. The allegation that there is clearance of 18 feet between the ground and the wires cannot be true as the complainant was able to come into contact with the wires while standing on the top of the bus, which is admittedly less than 18 feet. Therefore, they are also equally liable along with the second opposite party. The next question is, what is the quantum of damages that should be awarded to the complainant ? It is stated in the complaint that the deceased is aged about 50 years at the time of his death. His family consists of his widow, the complainant, and six daughters and one minor son. Due to his un-timely death, the complainant lost bread winner and deprived of their maintenance and love and affection. His yearly income was shown as Rs. 45,000/-. The complainant filed Ex. A-1 to show that the deceased was pattadar in respect of the two acres of land in Parpelli village. That apart, he was also doing fruit business, by bringing fruit bags from Hyderabad to his village and vice versa. Though, there is no clear-cut evidence about the income of the deceased of his fruit business, we have to fix the same and an element of the guess work has necessarily to be adopted. Accordingly in view of the land of two acres, for which, he would be attending to agriculture and also the income which he would be realising on fruit business are lost to the family. Having regard to the over-all circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the deceased would be earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month and he would be spending a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on his family, i.e., his wife and children. As he was aged about 50 years at the time of his death, we can safely take it that he would carry on business and agriculture for another 15 years, the same would come to Rs. 3,60,000/-. As the amount is being paid in a lump-sum, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs can be fixed towards compensation and the said sum shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The amount shall be shared by both opposite parties equally. The amount shall be apportioned equally between the complainant and her 7 children. The shares of the minor children shall be kept in fixed deposit till they attain majority. However, the complainant is entitled to recover interest periodically. With these observations, the complaint is allowed to the extent indicated above with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Complaint allowed.