The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants and for the Respondents in Cross Objection ..APPELLAI TS/RESPONDENTS Sri B. Pradeep re I Sri A. Chandra Shaker (Standing ( ounsel for NPDCL) Counsel for the Respondents and for the Cross Objectors in Cross Objection: Sri Ajay Kumar Kr lkarni appearing on behalf of Sri tl Narasimha Sarma The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA A.S.No.197O of 2OO1 AND X-OB.IECTIOIIS tlo. I of 202s COMMON JUDGMENT: The appeal suit is hlcd under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Appellant/ Defendnats against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, Karimnagar, (hereinafter referred to 'learned trial court') in O.S.No. l5 of 1998, dated

25.O4.2001.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties u,ill be hereinafter referreci to as they are arrayed before the learned trial court

3. The brief facts of [he case are [hat the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of the deceased viz., Veerasu'ami, have tiled a suit for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) with an inrerest of 18Ya per annum for the damages from the date of death of the deceased Veeraswamy from the defendants.

4. Learned counsel for the appcllant contended that the deceased on the intervening night of 27 128.10.1997 , at 2:00 a.m. was returning from ') - JVr\&.J AS.No.1970 oF 2001 3.i oEl.No.1 OF 2025 the cattie shed situated in front of his house after tying lre bulls in the cattle shed, suddenl1, the current wires with equipmcrt i.ell down from the pole and the deceased came in contact u,ith the I ve *,ire due to r'r4-rich he died on the spot. It is contended that il. cleath of the deceased rvas caused due to the negligence of the deft, L,lants who did not checked upon the said equipment and not properl rrxed the said electric wire, due to *'hich the deceased died and the , a.intiffs claimed for Rs.2,50,000/- for rhe damages. 5' Defendant No.2 i.e., the Department has rrred ur r.-ten statement denying the averments made in the plaint and corl:ndcd that the deceased died only due to his own negligence and in ,r.oper care and that it is also denied of the registering of the case by th: groricc. It is also denied that the defendants promised to pay the cornl cnsation to the plaintiffs and that the defendant No.2 is not lia t L: to pay any compensation as there was no negligence on their par-r. l)efencrant No.2 also denied about the income of the deceased and rL so the age and avocation of the deceased and therefore prayed to disrn r s; the appeal. 3 /vjw.J 1970 0F 2001 & X-OB,J. No. I OF 2O2S 6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned trial court framed the follow,ing issues which read A,s as under: "i) Wtether the plaintilfs are entitled to sltit cleinr as praged for? 2. To what relrcP"

7. To substantiate their case, plaintiff No. I herself examined as pW I and also examined one Sathiri Kumaras,,r,amy as pW_2 and marked Ex.A- I & A-2. DW- 1 was examined on behalf of the defendant No.2. B. After hearing both the counsel and considering the entire material placed, the learned trial court came to conclusion that defendants are iiable to pay the compensation as it is a crear case that the deceased died due to the negligence on the part of the defendants while fixing the pole wires, res,-rlting the crea-th of the cleceased due to electrocr,rtion a,nd also considering the income of the deccased @; Rs.SO/- per day and taken Rs. 1,500/- as monthly income and also taking lile expectancy, awarded an arnount of Rs.85,000/ to the plaintiffs with an interest @r 9Vo frorn the date of accident till the date of reahzation. 4

9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment .4S.No.I dla,l 970 0F 2001 ,9 X-OBJ.No.l OF 2025 anc decree, dated -

25.04.2001, the present appeal is filed on the follou i r,g among other grounds contending that the learned trial court did rr ri consicler that there rvas no negligence on the part of the departmert ..vhile fixing the live wires on the pole and it is only the negligencr: 11' the derceased Further, the learned trial court ought to have seen that the cable u,ire is properly insulated and properly fitted to the pole at an., [)oint of time the u.ire can't be cut-off lrom the pole and there is no po;;'bility to get the electric shock with AB cable at middle portion as state c 11- the plaintiffs i irc usicl'rOI aie Seru lce W1l e USeU iOi iiiei-L Oi eiiefK-\ ,1u iaiieil On -r.ile ground on 27.1O.1997, wherein the hear.y gale and u'ir J rvhich lallen on the deceased due to which he died, but not becr r s;e of coming 1n contact with the electricity wire passing as contended

10. [t is also contended that the equipment and jr r rrlated cable wire u,as removed by opening of AB switch of DTR by r;, rne unauthorized persons who were involved in theft of enerry b) ,L:;ing de.,eriorated service '"vire and removed AB cable and httings at po1: location. as such, there is no possibility to get the elect-ric shock with r Il cable at middle portion - lvim.J AS.I'1o.1970 OF 2OOl a. xaBJ. No. I OF 2025 11. The learned tria,l court ought to have seen that there is no proofof 5 age and income of the deceased without considering these aspects have awarded t he compensation.

12. The Respondents/ Plaintiffs have a-lso hled X Objections No. 1 of 2025 being aggrieved by the meager compensation i.e., Rs.85,000/- awarded by the trial court though they have claimed for Rs.2,50,000/-.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiffs contended that it is a clear case that PW- 1 died due to the negligence of the electricity board resulting electric shock and erred in restricting the compensation of Rs.85,000/-. The learned trial court did not consider the income of the deceased @ Rs. 1O0/- per day in terms of the evidence of pW-2 and Ex.A-1. Further, the learned trial court ought to have taken the monthly income @ Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs, 1,000/ . Thc learned trial court erroneously decided the life expectancy ar the age of 54 and had taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.9,000/- per ycar instead of allowing the claim and awarding Rs.36,000/- per annum. i4. i iea.r-d i'fi-.B,Prad.eeit, leai.le,j cuijitsel represenrinB i'v'lr.A. Cliatidra Shaker, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Ajag Kumq.r \ I 6 H,I{R.J 4-$. NoJ91L 91 2991 a x oBJ No.1 oj-2!25 Kutkarni, learnecl counsel appearing on behalf r' Mr.B.Nzrrsimha Sarma, learned counsel lor the respondents' i5. Having heat-d the rival contentions putforth on r ither side and on perusal of records, the point for consideration before I .r s court is that: i . Wiether rhe respondents ore entitied for the enivtru:t'r cotnpensattotT? 2. whether the ptcintiffs haue made out ana case for r tterference tuith the ftndings giuen bt1 the tial courl?

3. Wheth.er lhrtre i-s anA negligence on I e part of op p e Lkt n t s / defe n dant s ?

4. Whether the trail court hos rightlg auarded compen; 'rion) 5. whethcr the cotnpensation can be anuarded bg folir uinq the notificatiort issued b1l the Telangana State Electricitg Reqtr't tiru Corr' mission in respect oJ' grartting ex-gratia?

6. If so, to tuhot relief) Point No.3: 16. It is the case of the plaintiffs that fhe deceas:d died due to the he r'vas electrocution on the intervening night of 27 128.1( 1997 "r'hile returnillg lrom his cattle shed after tying the bulls r I the cattle shed ar-r d get in contact v|ith the current wire a]rld equipment I liich fell dou'n from the pole and got in contact rvith the live u'ire ait r t due to rvhich the rYnlR.J AS.No,1970 OF 2OOj & X.OBJ.No. t OF 2O2s current passed through by the deceased, as a result, the deceased died 7 on the spot 17 . The main contention the plaintiffs that the deceased died due to the negligence on the part of the appellants/ defendants as they have not properly insulated and htted to the electric pole and the same is denied by the department contending that there is no negligence on the part of the department. It is stated by DW- 1 in his evidence that the wire which was fa,llen was duly insulated AB cable and it \4.i11 not give any shock to the body and someone has intentionally open the AB cable kept at the spot. It is a-lso further stated by DW- 1 in his evidence that the distance between two electric poles is 70-80 meters and the dead body of the deceased was lying in the center of the tr.r'o poles. though it is contended by DW- I that there is no possibility of lalling of wire exactly at the place of dead body, but in cross examination he has specifically admitted that he has not conducted any panchnama at the scene of accident regarding the falling of the vvire and to knou' u'hether any pilferage of electricity. ! t t I I.INR.J As.tte.l919 OF 2Ool n X OBJ.No.1 082925 1g. lt is aiso brougl-rt ro the notice of this court that a.: :ording to Rule 8 No.555 of the cocle of Safetl, Rules of APSEB, the inves .igation should cove r the lollorving aspccts:

1. The causc :ind the circumstances under u'tr:c I the accidcnt occurred:

2. Whcther all the safety rules and precaut cnary measurcs havc been observed and if not who 'v:-c all rcsPonsiblc lor the same;

3. Liability to pay compensation to the casualty: 4 Any obscrvation or inference which corlld he rl' r vrn lor future guidzrnce. lg. Considering the evidence of PW-2 and DW and aiso the postmortem report u'hich clearly shorvs that the caus'r c'f the death was only due to the elt:ctrical shock, prima facie, on the fa(: of entire record nhich clearly shorvs that the deceased died due to lectrocution and Ivhich is not in clispr-rte by the defendants. The otr y factum is that whether the said electrocution u,as due to the self ne1.l 5;ence on the part of the deceased or due lo the negligence on the part r'the delendants Though the DW- I denied about the same, but inla< t it clearly shows that the deceased clicd ancl even as per the DW- 1 rlL, dead body of the deceased was founcl near two electricai'pote wires ar< there is no denial - dtE l 4q,e.l9!p 3!_294 &X:qBJ-Na 19I2o2s that the equipment fixed to the pole was fell down and the edge oi the 9 live n,ire came in contact with the deceased which is not in dispute which is also clearly made out from the evidence before this Court. In the u.'ritten statement it is specihcally stated that the said accident occurred cl-r-re to the illegal ta-pping of electricity by unknolr,n person }_r,w using deteriorated service wire. It has to be noted that it u,as ir-r the late night when the accident occurred. Admittedly the equipment firted to the electric pole was detached even as per the pleadings of the defendants. Though it is contended that no possibility in getting electric shock ',vith AB cable at middle portion of the wire being derached and the equipment fitted to the pole is intact and properly htted and there is no negligence on the part of the defendants. Admittedly, it is a clear case rvhere the deceased died due to the electrocution, as such, the contention of the defendants that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants cannot be accepted for the reason that it is the duty of the defendants to see that any equipment hxed to the pole ought to have fixed rvith proper care and precaution and should not fall due to rain and should not be detached from the po1e. Hence, for the said reasons and as per the alalysis of evidence placed, the death of the deceased was caused due to the electrocution and that too due to the negligence .- 10 I\[VR.J As.&.l2f,g oF 2oo1 &]98!4eJ oF 2O2s. on the part of the respondent department. Hence, this :s sue is answered accordingly in lavorrr of thc plaintiffs / cross r l jectors against defendants / responclen ts. D^;-r NI^c 1 A 9, c,

20. Coming to the aspect of compensation, the le: :ned trial court considering the aspect that the deceased was aged abr r,rt 40 years a.d was earning Rs. I00/- per day, but the learned tril court without considering the fact that during 1997, the deceasr: I rvas hale and healthy and t"{'as having agricultural backgrour r t should have considered the income o[ the deceased at Rs.100/-, br t r-he learned trial court taken into consideration of the incorne of the dt,< :ased at Rs.50/- per day has ar.r,arde<l Rs.85,000/- under the following r rrious heads; considering the dailv u,ages at Rs.50/- per da1, for 20 working days per month on an average Rs. 1,0O0 ., )() per month Considering monthl_v income of Rs. 1,000/- for 9 months per J.car excluding (3) months rainy season. Rs.9,000- )C per year. Considering average Indian Life expectancy Rs. 1 ,26,r) )rl-00 of 54 Sears is Rs.9.000/- per year income ibr (14) years. Deduction of I1Q p.,.fsg4el qxpenq iture Rs.42,OC( -00 of the deceased. 11 ta4,/ AS,Ivo. t970 0F 2001 I OF 2025 -t An X-OB.J- Therefore Rs 1,26,000/- minr-rs Rs 42,000/ Rs.84,000-00 Rs.85,000-00

21. Now the question is whether the compensation can be awarded by applying the principles of Motor Vehicle Act or the Regulations which are made or the abstract issued by the Telangana Electricity Regulatorl.' Commission (for short TERC) can be taken into consideration u,hile deciding the compensation. in fact, it is aiso the said absrract issueci by the TERC is not in dispute. The plaintiffs have also contended that the case of the plaintiffs can be considered under the said abstract for the reason that it is more beneficial to the plaintiffs rather than the amount '*,hich is calculated as per the judgment of the trial court.

22. As seen from the said abstract, which abstract proceeding No.TSERC/Secyl64l2Ol7, dated 28.12.2017, wherein the quantum of ex gratia payable in case of latal accident resulting in death of a non- department person earlier vvas Rs.4,00,000/- which has enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-, but in the said abstract it is specifically stated that the is applicable to the cases which are occurred with effect from t2 fl?fi'J As t'to.19?O O! 2gPL !L\LPN4!2:1 oF 2025 01.01.2018. Further. the saicl abstract, dated 28'12 ))17' cannot be relied upon for thc llurpose of granting compensa t r rr' so also the abstract, dated 28. 12.2O15, vide proceeding No TSF ItC/Seci /86 of 20 15; wherein the enhancement of ex gratia in res I :':t of the same payable in fatal accident resulting in death of a : :n-departmental person was Rs.2,00,000/- and it was enhanced to Il; zi'00'000/- lt is specifically stated in the said abstract at paragrapl l'1o 13' for ready reference the same is reproduced hereinunder:

13. Effect of Enhancement of ex-gratia: A. This order shall come into lorce in respect ' r a fatal acciden( resulting in dcath ol a Non-departmelll' L person and / or ol an animal(s) ou'ing to electrocution 'v th effect lrom I -' Jr,nuary 2016. B. The latal accidents rcsulting in death rl rl Non- departmental pcrson and I or of an animal(s cwing to eiec[rocution upto :3 i. i2.2Oi5 shaii be goverr tr c by Lhe erstwhile Commission order datecl 13 08'2013

23. The case of thc plaintiff rvould fall under 13 tl r s, the said accident was occurred on 27 l2B-1O-1997 i.e', prior to 31'1' 2015 and in such case the same shall be governed by order, dated i08'20i3' abstract that is the Commission order, the ex gratia for the lr:ath which caused ----- {B,J 4E-M-1970oF 2o0l I OF 2025 due to the electrocution was Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of a non- departmental person with an interest @12%' [n the present case' as the a, x oBJ- plaintiffs claim for Rs.2,50,000/ - u'ith interest' 24 . ln vieu, of the flndings of this court that the said death has occurred due to the eiectrocution and that too due to the negligence on the part of the deoartment. This Court is of the opinion that the case of theplaintiffsverymuchfallwithintheabstractCommissionOrder' dated 13.08.2013, which is referred to in the proceedings No.TSERC/Secyl86 of 20 I5, dated 28'12'2015, and the plaintiff would be entitled for ex gratia of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest'

25.Consideringtheaboveabstract,thisCourtisoftheopinionthat the plaintifls would be entitled for the said sum under the said abstract. 'vVitl-r i egai-d to tire iiiter est, eveii as pei- the very abst|act' ciated 28.12.2015, where it says in any delay in payment of ex gratia to the legal heirs after two months lrom the date of the plaint shall attract the simple intere st @, l2ol' per annum till the date of payment ln fact' if q'e take the filing of the petition before the trial court as an application for defendants fully au'are that there was a payment of ex gratia, the \ Commissidn Order, dated

13.08.20 13, existing as on the said date of t ...i7.J.?F',1'4jFt.@,,1,f .- JV n."l AS.No.l97O OF 2O01 6,4.oE!8,.1 oF 2O2s accident, it is the defendants who ought to have ar'l'tu t t:d the ex gratta 14 to Lhe plaintiffs/ claiman ts. ln the absence of there I eing no positive action taken by the rlepartment itr resoect of the sanr: as such taking into consideration of the regr-rlation, the defendants . re lrount.l to pay the interest for the non-compliance of the Comrni s;ion Order and payment ol the cx gratia. [n such case, this Court is I the opinion that the piaintilfs are er-rtitled for the compensation rvith ir I :rest @ 12Vo even b,1' applying the said clause-A o[ the said abstract.

26. Hence, for the said reasons, the points are an:r ,'ered in favour of rhe piaintiffs against the deienciants alci this Cottr t ts oi the opinion that the learned trial court ought to have consider€( referred above and au,arded the just compense( i ,rl. Hen<:e, which tae said aspect as u,arrants interference in the said judgment and dec- t: ol trial court. In the absence of the same, the judgment and dt:t ' ee passed by the learnecl trial cottrt is set aside and this points are I - su'ered accordingly that the petitioners are entitled lor the enhancc c compensation by r.ppll ing Nor.ificat ion iss'-tecl h1' th.e Telanga.': St ate trlectricity Regulatory Commission. I I -ru\m.J A5.1,o.1970 0F 200t & x.oB.r.No. t OF 2OZs 27. In the result, the appeal filed by rhe appe llants/defendants is 15 dismissed and the cross objection filed by the plarntiff/cross objectors is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned- trial court and au,arding compensation of Rs.2,O0,O00/- with interest @ l2ok per annum (-) which is already deposited if any, from the date of accident till the date of realization, thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. The appellants/ defendalts are directed to deposit the entire claim of the compensation with interest and cost within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, the plaintifls are entitled to recover the same by ta)ling s'.eps as pro', ide d unCe:- la',',' anC cn such deposit, the plaln'.iff No. I being the wife is entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest and plaintiff No.2 though he was a minor at the time of hling of the petition, the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported that he has attained the age of majority and in such case he sha_ll move an application before the trial court seeking declaration o[ his majority and after that the plaintiff No.2 is enrirled for an amount of Rs.5O,000/- with proportionate interest and cost. Plaintiff Nos.3 & 4 being the parents are entitled for Rs.25,000/- each n,ith proportionate interest and costs. \ 16 -- lvxR,J As.!e.l9Ao.9E 299f tt -/ Q4!-N9,! oF 2O2s Miscellaneous ltetilions, il any are pending, shall stan I closed Sd/. M TAMANA KRISHNA OINT REGISTRAR { \='_. \l SECTION OFFICER /7 /TTRUE COPY// To, 1 2 3 4 The Chairman, fVlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cunt S _.nior Civil Judge at Huzurabad. (with records, if any) One CC to Sri A. Chandra Shaker (Standing Counset fr r trtpDCL) {OpUCl One CC to Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies a, vt-vPR -}; o u ,.: iTAT : li ii ?l?B 4 .L HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED: 1011012025 COMMON JUDGMENT +DECREE AS.No.1970 of 2001 AND X-OBJ No. 1 of 2025 DISMISSING THE AS.No.1970 of 2001 AND ALLOWING THE X-OBJ No. 1 of 2025 o w tL 1 .1, r) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA APPEAL SUIT NO: 1970 OF 2001 AND x-oBJECT|ONS NO. 1 0F 2025 APPEAL SUIT NO: 1970 OF 2001 Between:

1. The Chairman, APTRANSCO (APSEB), Vidyut Soudha, Hyd 2. The Superintending Engineer, APTRANSCO (APSEB), Operation Circle, Karimnagar. ...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS AND

1. Ivlaramulla Laxmi W/o late Veeraswamy, aged 35 yrs, Occ: Household 2. Ivlaramulla Ra.jakumar S/o Late Veeraswamy, aged 5 yrs, (Minor) under the Guardianship of Plaintiff No. 1. i.e. Mother.

3. MaramLrlla Lasumaiah S/o Peddaiah, aged 60 yrs, Occ: Labour 4. Ivlaramulla Boogamma W/o Lasumaiah, aged 55 yrs, Occ: Household All are r/o Valbhapur village of Veenavanka lvlandal, Karimnagar Dist.

5. The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist. ...RESPONDENTS X-Obi. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between:

1. Maramulla Laxmi W/o late Veeraswamy, aged 38 yrs, Occ: Household 2. Maramullah Rajakumar S/o Late Veeraswamy, age 7 yrs, being minor rep. by his mother and being minor and natural guardian i.e. 1'' appellant

3. Maramulla Lasumaiah S/o Peddaiah, aged 62 yrs, Occ: Labour 4. Maramulla Boogamma W/o Lasmaiah, aged 55 yrs, Occ: Household All are R/o Valbhapur Village of Veenavanka l\,4andal, Kilr rlnagar Dist ...CROSS OBJEC'- )RYRESPONDENTS AND

1. The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist.

2. The Chairman, A.p S.E.B , Vidyut Soudha, Hyd. 3. The Superintendino Enqineer, ApTRANSCO (ApSEE ). Operation Circle, Karimnagar ...RESPON I :NT/RESpONOENT ...APPELLAI\ TS/RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section i 73 of Motor Vehicles Acl a td [/emorandum of cross objections Under order XLI Rule 22 of c.p.c agains he order and decree in o P No 15 of 1998 dated zs-o4-zo0i on the fire of the (.r urt of the chairman, Ir4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-senior Civil Judge at l-rr zurabad. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon pe.L s ng the grounds of appeal' the Judgment and Decree of the court berow and ;l- l materiar papers in the OP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. pradee) .,:p. Sri A. Chandra Shaker (Standing Counsel for NpDCL) for the App I .rnts and for the Respondents in Cross Objection and of Sri Ajay Kumar l..r lkarni appearing on beharf of Sri B. Narasimha sarma, Advocate for the Res r ,.rdents and for the Cross Objectors in Cross Objection. This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the Appeat fited by the dismissed appellants/defendanrs be and hereby IS 2 Jiat the cross objection fired by the praintiff/cross obj( ( c)rs be and hereby is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree pass: by the learned trial court and awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/_ !v il interest @ 12ok per annum(-) which is atready deposited if any, from the ,j te of acciclent till the date of realization, thereby decreeing the suit in favour < i the plain|ffs against the defendanls

3. That the appellants/defendants are directed to deposi: re entire ctaim of the compensation with interest and cost within two mo r ns from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which, the plaintiffs rre entifled to recover .t the same by taking steps as provided under law and on such deposit, the plaintiff No.1 being the wife is entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,00,0001 with proportionate interest and praintiff No. 2 though he was a minor at the time of filing of the petition, the rearned counser for the praintiff reported that he has attained the age of majority and in such case he shall move an application before the trial court seeking decraration of his majority and after that the plaintiff No 2 is entitled for an amount of Rs. 50,0001 with proportionate interst and cost; and

4. That the Plaintiff Nos.3 & 4 being the parents are entifled for Rs.25,0001 each with proportionate interest and costs. Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA INT REGISTR4e"- //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad. Two CD Copies M,VH/PR HIGH COURT DATED: 1011012025 COMMON DECREE AS.No.1970 of 2001 AND X-OBJ No. 1 of 2025 DISMISS!NG THE AS.No.1970 of 2001 AND ALLOWING THE X-OBJ No. 1 of 2025 I T \1