The High Court · 2025

...Appellants/Defendants Counsel for the Appellant : SRI A.CHA DRA SHAKER ( SC FOR NPDCL) ...Respondents/Plaintiffs Counsel for the Respondents : KILARU K ADER BABA The Court made the following : JUDGMEN THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL STIIT NO.36.1O OF 2q)3 JUDGMENT: 'fhis appeal is frled by the appellants-Electricity Deparlment against the Decree and Judgment dated

03.02.2003 passed in O.S.No.19 of 1998 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli, Khammam District.

2. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. l9 of i 998. They frled the suit claiming compensat ion o[ Rs.1,I5,OOO/- to each of the plaintiff from the deft:ndanls therein. The averments of the plaint are that plainti[[s are residents of Kakarlapalli Village of Sathupalli Mand:rl. Thc first plaintiff had a she buffalo aged about 7 years irnd thc second plaintiff had a she buffalo aged about 6 years u'orth ol' Rs. l5,OOO/- each. On O1.07.1997, the above shc bullalocs found dead at the Mango garden of Kancherla Ranrcsh at Kakarlapalli Village. The live wire attached to the el('ctricitv polc in the said garden was found cut and fallen on rhe she buffaloes, due to which, they died instantaneouslr. Thc matter was reported to the police, conducted p:rnchzrnamu 2 and mediators opined that the dea of she buffaloes was due to electric shock. As such, the plain sc laimed compensation of Rs. 1, 15,000/- each with costs.

3. The appellants herein who the defendants in the said suit filed written statement s ting that suit itself is not maintainable. Plaintiffs have not fil d any document to show that they are the owners of she bu oe S their value and the rncome they derive from them. s per the panchanama conducted by the police, the electri wire was cut lying on the ground and when the she buffalo went lor grazing in the Mango garden they came into con t !r,ith it, got electrocuted and died. The police have not regis red arnl case against the defendants. The post mortem reP rt shor.r,s onlv the date of death and it also does not state the agc of she buffaloes. It is also stated that defendants 4 and rd,'er(' not inlormed about snatching of electrical wire either thc onners o[ garden or the villagers. If the snatching of wire u,as reported to the defendants, they may have rectifie it. As such there is no negligence on the part of defenda ts and requestcd the trial Court to dismiss the suit 3

4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the trial Court examined Pws. I to 5 and got marked Exs.A.l to A.17. On behalf of the defendants, Dw. I was examined and no documents were marked on their behalf. The trial Court framed tlr'o issues and decided in lavour of plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the defendants.

5. Heard Sri A.Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel appearing Ior the appellants and Sri Kilaru Khader Baba, Iearned counsel appearing for the respondents. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is 6. that the trizrl Court failed to appreciate that there is no intimation 1o the Department with regard to snapping of u'irc; that the trial Court committed error in holding ncgligencc on the part ol Department, though there is no intimation to the Department with regard to falling of wire. The elemenl o[ ncgligence u ould arise only when the Department doe s not respond inspite of intimation. The further contention o[ Iearned counsel for the appellants is that the trial Court lailed to give finrling regarding negligence on the part of appellants herein, rrgithout there being any negligence on the part ol 4 appellants, compensation was a ed when the snapping of electrical wire was not informed to e appellants, they cannot be made parties to the suit, as the appellants herein had no knowledge of the same. If the same is brought to their notice and no action is taken by the D partment, thcn only the parties can claim compensation fro the appellants. Learned counsel further contended that this Court while granting stay directed the appellants to deposit f of the decreetal amount and costs and the appellants ve paid an amount of Rs. 1,3I,646/- in the present case. s such, prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of trial Co rt.

7. On the other hand, learned unsel for thc respondents would submit that there is no illegal ty in the juclgment ol trial Court as the loss caused to both respondents u,as dut' to the negligence of the appellants h ein, the shc buffalocs of the respondents got electrocuted. Hence, praycd to drsmiss this appeal. 8, Basing on the said conten ns, the follou.ing pornts arisc for determination : 5 I Whether the appellants are responsible for the death of she buflaloes ?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the trial Court is exorbitant ?

3. Whether the judgment of the tdal Court needs any interference ? POINT t{Os. I TO 3 : g. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that due to the negligence of appellants, the she buffaloes died. There is no proof that the death of she buffaloes was due to electrocution, however, the panchanama clearly states that both the she buflaloes died due to electrocution. Further the only contention raised by the appellants herein is that snapping of clectrical w'irc was not informed to them and as it is not informed, thel' have not attended to the said issue' Therelore, thcre is no negligence on the part of appellants, whereas the trial Court dt:cided the said issue basing on the evidertce of Rvs. I to 3.

10. The triat Court relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supre me Court in G.K.Subramania Iyer and others V 6 T.Kunhikuttan Nair and others I d in Chairman MPEB, Rampur Jabalpur and another V In G.K.Subramania lyer's case, Goud and others2. it was obsewed that compulsory damages under Section I.A of the Fatal Accidents Act, for wrongful death must limited strictly to the pecuniary loss to the beneficiaries d under Section 2 the measure of damages is the econo c loss sustained by the estate. There can be no exact unifo rule for measuring the value of human life and the meas of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical culations. Further, in Chairman MPEB, Rampur, Jabalp 's case, it was observed that duc to clectrocution by live electric wire which has broken and lying in field principle o resipsa loquitur applies, burden is on the Electricity Board prove that there was ncr negligence on their part lI. In the present case also, it s an admitted fact rhar clectrical lr,ires lying in the Iields d due to electrocuti()n both the she buffaloes died. As su h there is no illegaliry in the judgmenr o[ trial Court deciding negligence on the part o[ appellants, as no evidence is addu d by appellants to shou, I AtR 1970 Supremc Court, 376 r AIR 1999 Madh\a l,radesh l7 4 \ a. 7 that there is no negligence on the part of Electricity Board. with regard to the amount awarded by the triar court the cost of the buffalo was taken as Rs.l5,00O /_ each. According to Pw.S, each she buffalo gives g to lO liters of mitk per day and if they would have arive, they wourd have derivered z or g calves and after the delivery of calves, the said she buffaloes would have given milk for 1O months. The only ground relied on by the trial cour[ for awarding the total amount of Rs. I , l5,OO0/ - is rhat Dw. I did not deny the claim. Even though it is thc cluty of the court to estimate the loss caused to the partit:s due to rhe cleath of she buffaloes, there is no scientihc calculation for t:stimation of loss, though it is mentioned th.r( ttrc cosr of shc bulfalo is Rs. l5,OOO/_. There is no proper c:rlculation for the loss caused to the plaintiffs therein, though plaintiffs claim tl.rat the she buffaloes would give 7 or 8 car'es, As arread-y rhc cost of she buffaroes was awarded, the plarnriffs can bu-y neu.she buffaloes. Therefore, the calculation arrivcd at by rhe trial Court is not in accordance s,ith lhe rules. Further, the appellants herein have alreadl, rlcposited Rs.1.3l ,646/_ in the trial Court and the responclcnts have withdrawn the entire amount as 8 directed by this Court. Accordi ly, point Nos. 1 to 3 are answered.

12. In view of the above discus ion, the Appeal Suit is disposed of timiting the amount al y paid by the appellants herein to the respondents. No costs' Miscellaneous petitions, Pen ing, if any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE CO Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge, at Sathupalli, 2 One CC to SRI A CHANDRA SHAKE ammam Dis ( SC FOR NPDCL), Advocate loPUCl 3 One CC to SRI KILARU KHADER BA 4. Two CD CoPies Advocate IOPUC] Svs/l'SL M. HIGH COURT DATED: 1 6 10412025 I : I I I I JUDGMENT AS.No.3640 of 2003 1ii L ,}'i. 11 NC 20[ 1i+ :) j DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT \ q ( 1