The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO The Court delivered the following Judgment: r' HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI APPEAL SUIT NO.1926 of 200:] JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Mir Aqueel Ali, learned standing tlounsel for the appellants/TSNPDCL and Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, l,larned counsel for the respondents 2 This appeal has been filed challenging tlre decree and judgment daled 12.082002 in O.S.No. 161 of 199S passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the 'espondents as plaintiffs filed suit claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,0001 with interest al 18o/o per annum for the death of husl>and of the 1"t plaintiff due to electrocution. The trial Court having considered the issues of negligence and plaintiffs' entitlement for compensation, decreed the suit by awarding Rs.2,00,000/- with int,'rest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realizati<>n with costs. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants/A.P.Transmissron Corporation Limited, preferred this appeal. I ) i i I i I I I I : I 2 NTR,.' AS 1926 200J

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contest that the trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the defence of no negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants fixed the liability to pay compensation. He further contested that as the consumer/1"r plaintiff s husband failed to pay requisite fee for erecting permanent poles, even then the service line has been made available by the appellants/defendants by erecting a wooden pole. Further the accident took place only due to the negligent act of the deceased in maintaining the service wire. Therefore the trial Court erred to conclude the negligence of appellants/defendants disregarding the deceased's negligence and awarded the suit claim.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the deceased was consumer with Service Number 286 from the year '1996 and though there is guideline for the appellants/defendants for erection of permanent poles where the distance exceeds 30 meters from the electric motor, the respondents/plaintiffs continued the service connection with a temporary pole without proper maintenance of the service line and it caused the accident. The Trial Court having I 1, eonsidered these facts dismissed the contention raised by the 'i:sf N lP.l \s t926 200.1 appellants/defendants in regard to negligence on ihe part of the deceased. Therefore the conclusions recorded by tre trial Court is based on substantive evidence on the recorc and as the compensation claimed and granted is meager for ;'t death' and in the absence of any tenable ground, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel'

7. The points that arise for determination in the appeal are: (i) Whether the trial Court had prope'rly appreciated the material evidence in dt'termining the negligence? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for comPensation? B. The contention of the respondents/plaintiffs is that the husband of the 1't plaintiff had obtained agri :ultural electric connection by paying requisite fee under Consumer Number 286 of

1996.TheConsumerNo.286/Ex.A-4issubstantiatingthisfactand the appellants/defendants are in agreement' Likew'ise, the incident of electrocution on 03.02.1998 at 11 am and the consequent deathoftheconsumer/deceasedarealsonotindSpute.Thefact \ 4 NTR,J AS 1926 2003 1 that the permanent electrical pole and the service connection obtained by the deceased were at a distance of 140 meters and that line was extended by erecting wooden poles is also admitted fact. lt is pertinent to note that as per the lndian Electricity Rules the supplier has to ensure the supply line wires are in safe condition. Further, the service lines are to be secured by the supplier and it would be the property of the supplier/Corporation and it shall be maintained with its cost. Pertinently Rule 30 of the lndian Electricity Rules specifies that though the cost of service lines has to be borne by the consumer, the supplier/Corporation shall maintain them properly

9. ln the above noted rule position, in the case on hand that the appellants/defendants have to maintain the service line which is at a distance of 140 meters from the service connection. Admittedly the electrocution was due to damaged insulation of the service wire which is explaining that the appellants/defendants had not properly maintained the service line. '10. That being the factual position, the appellants/defendants' contest that there was no negligence on their part in maintaining the service line which caused the incident is unacceptable The ) l €?;is5w3:'t,9, . ..:..,... .. / ,/ 5 N]'II J \s 1926 20{)3 trial Court in the impugned judgment had considerec these aspects threadbare discussion recorded that the and in appellants/defendants were negligent in maintainirg the service line and it had resulted in the death of the deceased Thus the finding on negligence of the appellants/defendants recorded by the trial Court is substantiated by the material evidence, as such this ln effect' the conclusion deserves affirmation respondents/plaintiffsentitledforcompensationstar-rdsestablished and accordinglY confi rmed.

11. ln regard to compensation, the deceased wi:s 25 years old and the trral Court by taking into account the possrble income had arrived at reasonable compensation land in the :tbsence of any legally acceptable ground to interfere, the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned judgment also justifies approval.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, no legally valid ground is found to interfere with the impugned judgment and consequently the appeal isliabletobeandisaccordinglydismissed.Furtherconsidering the fact that the appeal is of the year 2003' the appellants/defendants are directed to deposit the differential i 6 NTR,J AS i926-2003 n compensation amount with the interest and costs within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed To //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SAILESHI OINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. ( with records ) 2. One CC to SRl. MIR AQUEEL ALI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. A. PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kul/gh M. { HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 +DECREE JUDGMENT APPEAL SUIT No.1926 of 2003 E siAT OA -r\ s r) I i t\ il-.' NS !'tJ i{ ii.. 1'. " 1 :,-' DISMISSING TH[, APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS b ,\, $ \? IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI APPEAL SUIT NO: 1926 OF 2003 Between

1. A.P.Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Superientending (operation) Warangal. ' Engineer

2. Assistant Electrical Engineer, Parvathagiri Mandal, A.P.Transmission .. Petitioners/ APPELLANTS Corporation Ltd., AND 1 2 Modu Vijaya , Wo late Eriya, aged 22 yea$, House hold R/o Doulathnagar Thanda Parvathagiri Mandal Warangal District. Modu Jyothi, D/o. Late Eriya , aged 4 years, ( being a m.inor rep. by her natural guardian mother, Respondent No. 1 i.e. Modu Vijaya R/o- Doulathhagar Thanda Parvathagiri Mandal, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS/ ResPondents Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and decree dated 12-08-2002 in O.S.No. 161 of '1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hcaring the arguments of Sri Mir Aqueel Ali, Standing Counsel for the appellants/ TSNPDCL and Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Respondents This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : l. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That the appellants/defendants are directed to deposit the differential compensation amount with the interest and costs within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. To 1 2. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal Two C.D.Copies SD/- K. SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR g Ec -I \DY{ c"t4 tC e ?- HIGH COURT DATED:,O4lO2l2Q25 DECREE APPEAL SUIT No.1926 of 2003 DISMISSING TIIE APPEAL SlJIT WITHOUT COSI'S \o\\