The High Court · 2025

2- Th.e brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, filed a suit seeking compensation of Rs.10,0O,000/- against the defendants stating that one llKV electricity live wire, which was hanging at a dangerously low height over her house in Pedda Yellapur village, snapped and fell on her on 10.O3.2014 while stre was performing domestic chores in front of her house. t)espite making several complaints to the Electricity Department about the poor and unsafe condition of the electric line, no remedial action was taken. As a resurt of the accident. the plaintiff sustained severe electric burns covering over 300,6 of her body, leading to permanent disability and significant hardship, including substantial medicar expenses 't, .-i ' and loss of her ability to work and support her family. \ i I I I : i I I I I l, l. 2 SKS'", rLS.IrIo.1782 of 20tg

3. On the other hand, the defendants denied the allegations of negligence stating that the electric line was constructed as per the required standards and was maintained properly. They claimed that the accident occurred due to a natural calamigr, a gale and strong wind on the day of the incident, which caused the wire to snap and fall. The defendants further contended that the house of the plaintiff was constructed beneath the electric line after its installation and that they were not responsible for the unfortunate event. They also alleged that the plaintiff failed to provide any prior complaint on record to substantiate her claim that the hazardous condition of- the wire was previously brought to their notice.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed two issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.l and 2 was examined and Ex.Al to A48 are marked. DW.l was examined I and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.

5. Upon thorough examination of the evidence, the trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2016, decreed the suit holding that the defendants failed to produce any material proof to r f 3 sKsr., A.S.IYo.1782 of 2O18 suppor:t their claim of a natural disaster on the day of the incide,t and that the burden of proof regarding proper mainte:nance and the absence of negrigence lies with the Electricity Department, particularly in light of the statutory obligations under Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules. The trial c,rurt also relied on the prior conviction of the Assistant Engineer and Lineman in criminal proceedings under Section 338 IPC, holding them responsible for the injuries caused to the ptaintiff. This conviction furtrrer established the negligence of the electricity authorities and that the trial court held that the accident was a result of the negligence of the defend:rnts in failing to maintain the electric line in a safe conditi,rn. Taking into consideration the plaintiffs medical expens,3s, pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, and ongoinl; disability, the trial court awarded a compensation of Rs.5,5 1 ,gsg / - along with interest at the rate of 60/o per annum from the date of the accident until the date of realization. The defendetnts were held jointly and severally liable to pay the said anrount- Aggrieved thereby, the appeflants/defendants frled thr: present appeal suit. I i 4 sKs,., il,.S.!fo.1782 of 2O18 f' '\i \

6. Heard Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for TSNPDCL, appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri D. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

7. Iearned Standing Counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material facts and evidence on record and that the overhead 1lKV electric lines were laid much prior to the construction of the house of the respondent, and as such, the appellants cannot be held liable for the subsequent construction made by the respondent beneath the said lines, He further submiHed that the trial Court did not consider the fact that, on the day of the incident, there was a heavy gale and wind in the area, which was the proximate cause of the snapping of the electric wire and tJ:at tJle llI(V electric lines were in good condition and regularly maintained, and in the absence of any extraordinary I force, there was no possibility of the wire snapping on its own.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court failed to gle due weight to the fact that no independent witness was examined on behalf of the plalntiff to / / l 5 aKar, A.S.tro.Ua2 of 2O1a corroborate the incident and the only supporting witness examined was PW-2, who is none other than the husband of the plaintift making him an interested witness whose testim,tny ought to have been scrutinized with caution. He furthe:: contended that the documents marked by the plaintiff did n,:t establish any legal liability on ttie part of the appelLrnts to pay compensation and that despite these material omissions, the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit and arvarding a compensation of Rs.5,51,959/- with interest at 60/o per annum from the date of the incident, i.e., 10-O3- 2014, aLong with costs of Rs.31,986/-. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court by allowing this Appeal Suit.

9. r)n the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Iiled counter aflidavit denying the averments made by the learne,l counsel for the appellants stating that the present suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold and that the respondent had filed a suit irr O.S.No. 10 of 2Ol5 seeking compensation for the grievous burn injuries sustained when a live llKV electric wire ft:ll from a pole due to the negligence of the appellants j :-:i -,, iL# ffiei,. 6 sKs,J A.S.IIo.1782 of 2O18 6' and their subordinates. He further submitted that the trial Court, after careful consideration of the evidence on record, decreed the suit awarding a compensation of Rs.5,51,959/- with interest at 60/o per annum from 10-03-2014 till the date of realization.

10. l,earned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the respondent was compelled to initiate execution proceedings in E.P.No.37l of 2Ol9 under Order 21 Rule 43 CPC, as the appellants failed to deposit the decretal amount despite the passage of the decree and that the appellants were set ex-parte in the execution proceedings and made ao efforts to comply with the judgment. He pointed out that the appellants have wrongly stated the date of the judgment as 30-O l-2OL6, whereas the correct date is 30-06-2016, which clearly demonstrates the casual and incorrect approach adopted by the appellants even in their pleadings. I

11. l,earned counsel contended that the contention of the appellants that they operate on a no-profit, no-loss basis and would suffer serious financial repercussions if the compensation is paid, is baseless and was never substantiated r ( 7 sKs,J A.S.Ifo.1782 of 2018 before the trial Court and that these are false and unfounded statements aimed at evading their legal responsibility. He further contended that the appellants have filed the present appeal with an application to condone a delay of 385 days. However, the delay is in fact approximately 730 days, and the reasorrs assigned for the delay are vague, unsatisfactory, and not supported by any credible evidence. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Estate Oflicer, Haryaaa Urbaa Development Authority v. Gopi Chand AtreJal, to assert that such inordinate delay without proper justification cannot be corrdoned. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Appea-l Suit.

12. Now the following points arise for consideration in this Appeerl Suit are: i. Whether there was negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants in maintaining the 1lKV electric line which caused injuries to the plaintifP '(zors) 4 scc 612 'r - iti; :i -. :.!- . :(- i I I 8 sl(s,., A.S.No.17E2 oI2OIa s ii. Whether the findings compensation awarded by the Court warrant any interference? Point Nos.i and ii:

13. In the light of the submissions made by both ttre learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that plaintiff/respondent frled O.S.No.1O of 2015 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00 ,OOO / - for the grievous burn injuries sustained due to the snapping of a live 11KV electric wire which allegedly fell on her while she was -performing domestic chores in front of her house'd.t' Pedda Yellapur village. In support of her case, she examined herself as PW.1 and her husband as PW.2 and relied on documentaqr evidence marked as Exs.Al to A48.. The FIR (Ex.Al) and charge sheet (Ex.A2) filed in Crime No.45 of 2014 establish that the incident occurred on 10.03.2014 and that the t Assistant Engineer and Lineman of TSNPDCL were prosecuted and later convicted under Section 338 IPC, as evident from Ex.A48. The medical documents including Ex-A4'medical opinion, Ex.A5-injury certificate, Ex.A6-discharge cdrd from NIMS, and bills from Exs.A7 to A33 confirm that the plaintiff r ( I I ..it'' /./ 9 sKs,J A.S.Ito.1782 of 2O18 sustairred 3*Oo/o burn injuries, including to vital parts of her body, riuch as the thorax, back, and buttocks. Ex.A34 and photographic evidence (Exs.A3S to A47l visually demonstrate the extent of her injuries and her suffering. The oral evidence of PW.l and PW.2 consistently support the version that complaints were made to the electricity department prior to the incident, though no written proof of prior complaints was filed. I{evertheless, the version of the plaintiff is supported by the crirninal conviction of the department's employees and the uncontroverted medical records. L4. C)n the other hand, the defendants examined DW.1, the Assistant Engineer, who contended that the electric lines were erected and maintained as per prescribed norms, and that the incident was caused due to a natural calamity, i.e., gate and wind. However, the appellants failed to place any documt:ntary evidence, such as weather reports or . mainterrance logs, to support their defence. The trial Court held ttrat in such cases, the burden of proof to establish absencr: of negligence lies on the electricity authorities, especially in view of Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, which rnandates protective devices to be installed on overhead ' r,,'-': i . # li.ir: i ri" il'.i l. ri{fi-r!- iar#i; ,;ati- \+, i 10 sKs,", AS.!to-1782 of 2O18 6 lines to render them electrically harmless in case of breakage. No such compliance was established by the appellants. Furthermore, the plea of act of God as a defence is not tenable unless properly substantiated, which was not done in the present case. The evidence of DW.1, when compared to the consistent testimony of PW.l and PW.2 and the medical and photographic evidence, does not inspire confidence.

15. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the trial Court took into account the plaintiffs age, the extent of injuries (35- 4Oo/o b:urrts), her inability to perform domestic work, and the financial burden arising from treatment in four different hospitals, Narsampet Government Hospital, MGM tlospital, NIMS, and Gandhi Hospital. The trial Court applied the multiplier method, taking Rs.3,OOO/- per month as notional income, and fixed Rs.1,72,8OOl- under the head of partial permanent. disability. Additionally, Rs.1,O0,0OO/- was awarded for pain and suffering, Rs.1,0O,0OO I - towards transportation and nourishment, and another Rs.1,O0,OOOl - towards medical expenses and incidental losses. [n all, Rs.5,51,9591- was awarded as compensation with60/o interest r l| 11 SKS,J A.S.I{o.1782 of 2O18 per ar.num from the date of accident. This amount is reasonable and supported by evidence.

16. The contention of the appellants that only an interested witnessi (PW.2, husband of the plaintiff) was examined, and that no independent witness supported the incident, is devoid of merit, since the incident was already the subject of a criminetl prosecution ending in conviction, and the injuries are proven through documentary medical evidence. Further, the argum€:nt regarding the plaintiff constructing her house a-fter \ \ ..the erer:tion of the electric line does not absolve the electricity 'departrnent of its continuing duty to ensure safety and proper mainterrance.

17. Though the respondent contended that the appeal was barred by limitation and filed with unexplained delay, this Court has considered the matter on merits. However, no substantial grounds have been shown to interfere with the t well-reeLsoned judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, this Court finds no error or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, in i.::- ,. :x.,:,' . l r*..y"+, i'.,:=.4. ! ' .:-'. ' [ .'::.::-. .:' tE,.,|,sfii L2 SKS'., A.S.IIo.1782 of 20,18 6 o.S.No.1O of 2Ol5 dated 30.06.2016, warranting interference by this Court.

18. Accordingly, this appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.1O of 2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad District. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad.(with records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri A. Chandra Shekar, Standing Counsel for TSNPDCL [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Dasi Ramesh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/kam M/ a r HIGH COIJRT DATED: 2910712025 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.1782 ot 2018 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS 6 A, ftl THE S TA ( r() -..1,.', * 2 I lnli 2625 z * I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NO: 1782 OF 2018 Between:

1. The Chdirman and Managing Director, TSNPDCL, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal

2. The Superintending Engineer, TSNPDCL, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda 3. Assistant Engineer, TSNPDCL, Kothaguda (V and M), Warangal. ...APPE LLANTS/PETITIONERS/DE FE N DANTS AND Boina Vinoda W/o. Peddayellapur, Village, lylaiah, aged 40 years, Occ- Agriculture, Mandal, Kothaguda, District Warangal. R/o ...RESPONDENT/PLAI NTIFF Appeal filed under section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 30-06-2016 passed in OS.No. 10 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Chandra Shekar, Standing Counsel for TSNPDCL for the appellants and Sri Dasi Ramesh, Advocate for the Respondent. ! a This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree rJated 30.06.2016 passed in O.S.No. 10 of 2015 by the leamed Senior Civil Juclge, Mahabubabad District; and

2. That the,re shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad. 2. Two CEr Copies VH/kam 4V Sd/.L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUW REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER n HIGH COIJRT DATED: 2910712025 DECREE AS.No.1782 ot 2018 DISMISSiNG THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS frt, L) a