The High Court · 2025

Judgment

HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJAI\L T APPEAL SUIT No'14 OI. 2OO3 JUDGMENT; The present Appeal Suit is filed challengir 1 thc order dated t.9.O4.20O2 made in O'S'No'284 of 2OOO or the hle of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Warangal'

The appellants herein are defendants' and t:spondents 2. herein are plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience' thc parties herein are referred to as arrayed in O'S'No 284 of i oOO' The brief facts of the case are that plaintilf No' 1 is the 3. wife, plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 are children, of one Janni. Kattamallu (hereinafter referred to as'deceasedJ, who died orr 16 OS 1999 at about Oi':15 A'M., due to electrocuti'on He u-ar aged about 45 years by the date of his death Deceased usc( to rvork as Mason in and around Warangal city and ean' ninimum of Rs.8,OOO/- per month. Being sole bread winner c I thc family' he used to maintain the whole family with his ear-rings till his death. At about O7:15 A-M., on 16.09'1999, the r eccasecl lost his life while cleaning the drainage in front of I s residence ' .: & b \ 2 He came into contact with a stay wire connected to electricity pole No. DPM 2011 situated directly outside his house, which, due to stray current, resulted in his instant electrocution. His wife, who witnessed the incident, promptly lodged a police complaint and a panchayat u.as convened. Alleging negligence by the Electricity Department in the upkeep and maintenance of the electric infrastructure, particularly the failure to install insulators and prevent current flow through stay wires, the plaintiffs sought compensation for a sum of Rs.3,OO,0O O/_ for loss of income, estate, and consortium.

4. The Electricity Board, in its defense, acknowledged the electrocution but attributed tl-re inci<lent to Lhe unauthorized and illegal tapping of electric power by one polepaka Cheralu. It was contended that Cheralu had connected damaged pVC service wires from the overhead line to his home, leading to leakage of current from the pole,s cross arm into the stay wire. The Board denied any fault in its orvn maintenance protocols. suggesting that the accountable instead. monthiy income of plaintiffs ought to have held Cheralu It further challenged the claimed the deceased and asserted that the 3 Department had neither received nor respondec to any legal notrce.

5. Durir-rg trial, plaintiff No. 1 got herself t xamined as PW. 1 , recounting the incident in detail and ,r firming her husband's earnings as a mason. Supporting depc sitions from PWs.2 and 3 corroborated the circumstances o1 -he incident and his profession, while documentary eviden : :, including Ex.A3 - inquest panchanama, conhrmed the 'xistence of service wires linked to Cheralu's house and tt t ir improper insulation. On behalf of the Electricity Board, D! ' 1 alhrmed that their clepartmental inspection had revealed i legal pou,er tapping but admitted that no action was tz l en against Cheralu, despite awareness of the hazard.

6. The trial Court, after thoroughly arralyzing he material on record, rejected the contention of Electricity B,r rrd that the sole blame lay with Cheralu, and held th: Electncity Departmenl, cuipable for negligence, emphasizin I monitor and prevent unauthorized connections its duty to The trial Court observed that the burden to prove absence : ' negligencc rested on the Department and that such de I )nses were i: .. '.lii,, ,{.1 .\'+ ai.+,r i:l5t, 4 insufhcient given the sustained existence of the dangerous connection without corrective action In determining compensation, the trial Court estimated

7. the deceased's monthly earnings as Rs-2,oOO/ - and applied suitable legal principles and multipliers, settling on an annual contribution of Rs.2O,OO0/-. After considering age, life expectancy, and standard deductions, the hnal compensation amount was caiculated at Rs. 1,85,O0O/-, inclusive of conventional heads like loss of estate and consortium. Interest at l2%o per annum was awarded from the date of suit until rea)ization. With the above, the suit was partiy decreed. The Electricity Department was held liable to pay Rs. 1,85,00O/-, as compensation, with proportional costs and interest, and was directed to remit the Court fees owing to the plaintiffs' indigent status. Aggrieved thereby, this Appeal Suit is filed by the appellants who are defendants in the suit.

8. Heard Sri A.Chandra Shekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for NPDCL, appearing for appellants, and Sri N.Mukunda Reddy Ravi, learned counsel for respondents. f r 5

9. l,earned counsel for appellants submittec that the trial Court erred both in law and in fact in fasteninE iability upon the appellants in the absence of concl.( te evidence establishing Departmental negligence. He conte r ded that the power which allegedly caused the electrocuti,r r was being tapped unauthorizedly and illega,lly by one pole: rka Cheralu, who had <lrawn an insulation-compromised pVl service wire directly from the overhead electrical lines into,-r s residential premises, and averred that the said conduct cr nstituted an independent and unlawful act which was dul.,, investigated and registered as Crime No. 169 of 1999 by thi local police authorities. He asserted that the said criminal proceedings would ciearly indicate that the deceased , /as himself responsibb for the hazardous connection, ther: ry, negating any fauit attributable to the appellants. He conter ded that the trial Court faiied to appreciate that, technically, 1 -Iere was no necessity Lo install a guy insulator on the st w rvire. He emphasizeri that even in the absence of such z n insulator, there was no feasible possibility of electrical cu - ent passing through the stay wire under standard operatine conditions. He averre<l that the appellants, having mai: rtained the electrical distribution system, including overherr I lines and :a'.+ . ,. i--. :if!- -#L ,'i{'r- i}d*:, 6 \T \ stay wires, for over two decades without any recorded incident of electrocution or eiectrical mishap, ought to have been presumed to have exercised all reasonable care and diligence in infrastructure maintenance.

10. Learned counsel for appellants incessantly contended ttrat the compensation awarded was excessive, unsupported, and speculative. He articulated that the plaintiffs failed to adduce reliable proof of the deceased's age or income, and no documentary evidence was filed to substantiate their assertion that the deceased was earning Rs.S,OOO/- per month. He emphasized that such an income claim was not only unverified but stood contradicted by the plaintiffs, own application to proceed as indigent persons under Order XXXIII of CPC, which inherently implied financial incapaci[r, and that the acceptance of trial Court of the claimed earning capacity, sums up to be without proper inquiry or evidentiary basis, which resulted in an inflated computation of compensation that lacked judicial justifi cation. I 1 . l,earned counsel for appellant submitted that the valuation adopted by the trial court, i.e., decreeing a t,' 7 compensation amount of Rs. 1,g5,0OO/_ along ,r ith interest at l2o/o per annum frorn 2O.Ol.2OOO, was disprop,t 'tionate to the actual pecuniary loss sustained, particularly in he absence of age proof and income documents. He pleadec this Court to re-evaluar-e the sum awarded, taking into acco -t -rt reasonable standards of proof and actuarial assessment. e ad revise the compensation accordingly. Therefore, prayed I ris Court to allow the appeal suit, setting aside the order datc 7 t9 .o4.2002 made in O.S.No.284 of 2OOO.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel fo- opposed the submissions made by leatned appellant and contended that it is an admir.r respondents, counsel for :d fact that deceased <lied due to electrocution and after thr. Officials ol the Department came to the spot z that the deceased came into contact with stay incident, the nd observed vire and got electrocuted, due to which he died on the spot. that such admission on the part of the Ofhcial; the negligence caused by them. He averr: Department ought to have made sure that no st left open or no stay wires are left unattended. The advocating that the trial Court had rightl,r. Je lamented itself shows 1 that the ry wires are 'efore, while noted the llil:')' !*. .rdii.. .:r*A ffiE ffi*-':-,' !Ef15:' =. - 8 negligence on the part of Department and held them accountable, he prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal, stating that there are no irregularities or illegalities in the impugned order.

13. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, the points determined for consideration by this Court are: I II Whether the appellants were negligent in maintaining stay wires ? Whether the appellants are liable for payment of damages, as awarded by the trial Court ? II I. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs any interference ? IV. To what extent ? POINT Nos.I to [V :

14. Upon carefuliy perusing the material available on record, it is to be noted that as there is no drspute with regard to death of deceased due to electrocution, it can be observed 9 that the rleceased died on the spot due to ele,: rocution that occurred as he suffered electric shock from s1el. wire that was left open in front of his house. However, it i the specific contention of learned counsel for appellant thz I one Cheralu had connected damaged pVC service wires fronr the overhead line to his home, leading to leakage of current 1i tm the pole,s cross arm into the stay wire, as such, the said tr( rson is liable for loss of plaintiffs.

15. At this stage, it is relevant to note the evide nce of DW. 1, which shows that there was a service wire con I :cting to the house of Cheralu from the electric pole and t rere was no proper insulation to the service wire conne < ting to the conductors. That being so, it is to be noted that pleaded that Lhe connection to the house of r illegal, there is no material on record or no,l support o[ the said contention. That apart, eve that the sa,id connection was illegal, there is nc though ir is )heraiu was rcument, in :r assuming --vidence on record to show what action was talen by the Dtr; artment for the said illegal connection. In the absence of ar evidence, to show that the Cheralu had takt:: y record or L electricity connection illegally due to which the stay wire r,, rs left open :*11' s" ffi'r..:. 10 and caused death of the deceased, it cannot be held that Cheralu is liable for occurrence of incident' At this juncture, it is imperative to note that admittedly, the Officials of the Department visited the scene of offence after the incident and according to them the incident occurred due to passing of electricity through stay wire. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the Department to not take any action against the stay wires that were left open in front of the house of deceased' is clearly seen. As such, it can be decided that there is negligence on the part of the Department, considering which the trial Court held the Department liable for occurrence of incident and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- to the family of deceased.

16. The other contention of learned counsel for appellant was that there is no basis for granting the above sum' whereas, it is to be noted that the evidence of PW' 1 is that her husband used to earn Rs.8,0O0/- per month by working as Mason, whereas, it is the specihc stand of the Department that she had not filed any document in support thereof or any document which would show his income as Rs 8,0OO/- That being the scenario, the trial Court analyzed the rough income t. I I 11 of deceased as Rs'3OO/- per day and considering 1l at even if he works whole a month' he would roughly ez I n around Rs.3OOO/- to 35OO/ per month' as such' it held t lat it was just to hold the earnings of deceased as Rs'2000/ I 'er month' In other words, in absence of any material' dr) )ument or record to show the income of deceased as Rs'lJ 0O0/- per month, the triai Court estimated the earning of I :ceased as Rs.2OOO/- per month' and awarded an u mount of Rs. 1,85,000/ - to the family of deceased' In the I rcts of the case, this Court is of the flrm opinion that the trir Court had awarded a reasonable amount, and the same equires no interference of this Court with regard to its calculir lon In nutshell, this Court is of the view that t r I trial Court 17 . has rightly' considered the evidence of PW' l :L rd DW' 1 in deciding the issue of negligence on the part of th: Department and had rightly concluded and calculated the lir 'bility of the Department Accordingly' Point Nos l to IV' are e t swered' and it is conciuded that there is no illegality or inhrrr i y committed passed in Court in order dated 19 'O4 '2Ot) ' try the trial O.S.No.284 2OOO, warranting interference { { I I I ,&.[ ------.4 72 of this Court. There are no merits in this Appeal Suit, and the same is Iiable to be dismissed

18. IN THE RESULT, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 / /TRUECOPY / / SECTION OFFICER

1. The II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal. 2. One CC to Sri A.Chandra Shaker, (SC FOR NPDCL) [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N.Mukunda Reddy Ravi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \ To, CJ K o HIGH COURT DATED:O7 /07 /2025 JUDGMENT AS.No.14 of 2003 Dismissing the A.S. \vithout costs. e0 :l'c SIA t', Ctn o () z .c-, -f *\+ 3 lAll ?028 j \s C i o