IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS
(POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
Present: Sri Huzaib Ahmed Khan, Special Sessions Judge For SC/STs (POA) Act Cases Cum- VII Addl.District Judge, Nalgonda.
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2019
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. Indrakanti Nirmala W/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Aged: 39 years, Occ: House Hold.
2. Indrakanti Bhavishya D/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Aged: 16 years, Occ: House Hold.
3. Indrakanti Dharmitha D/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Aged: 13 years, Occ: Student. Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 being minors rep.by their mother and natural guardian Indrakanti Nirmala, the plaintiff No.1 herein. All are R/o. Chinna Adiserlapally village of Deverakonda Mandal, Nalgonda district, Presently residing at Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. … Plaintiffs
And
1. The A.P.Central Power Distribution Corporation, Vidyuthsoudha. Khairathabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman.
2. The A.P. Transco Ltd, Vidyuthsoudha, Khairathabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chief Managing Director.
3. The Superintending Engineer, A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Limited,Nalgonda.
4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L.Ltd, Deverakonda.
… Defendants (SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES OF RS.20,00,000/- FROM THE
DEFENDANTS FOR THE DEATH OF INDRAKANTI VENKAT REDDY
DUE TO ELECTROCUTION)
The suit is coming on before me on 2-07-2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri Nukala Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri A. Suresh Babu, Advocate for Defendant No.1,3 and 4 and Defendant No.2 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
-:: JUDGMENT ::-
1. Brief facts of the plaint are that:
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
2
That on 13.02.2014 at about 6-15 A.M., the said Indrakanti Venkat
Reddy was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-29-BE-1945 from his village in order to go to his sweet orange garden situated at the outskirts of Chinna Adiserlapally village along with one Vasukula Lingaiah and on the way then they reached the land of one Gundala Chandraiah in
Sy.No.99, one 11 K.V., electric live wire snapped and came into contact to
Indrakanti Venkat Reddy and due to which he got electrocuted and died on the spot. The matter was reported by one Indrakanti Satyanarayana
Reddy, who is brother of the deceased to the police, Deverakonda Police station and the said police registered the case as crime NO.61/2014
U/Sec.174 Cr.P.C on 13.02.2014.
That the deceased Indrakanti Venkat Reddy was a progressive agriculturist and also doing real estate business in Nalgonda District and
Hyderabad City. The deceased Indrakanti Venkat Reddy had raised sweet orange garden in his lands and used to manage the same under his personal supervision. It is further submitted that prior to the accident, the deceased was quite hale and healthy and aged 48 years and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from his agriculture and also from his business and he used to contribute said earnings for the maintenance of the plaintiffs. The deceased was an income tax assessee. Due to the sudden and premature death of the deceased the plaintiff No.1 lost her life partner at her young age and thereby she is suffering mentally and financially and her future has became miserable. The plaintiff No. 2 and 3 lost their father at their child hood and subjected to loss of love, affection and maintenance that may have been provided by their father and he not died in the above incident. The plaintiff No.1 also lost the conjugal
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
3 enjoyment due to the death of her husband at her younger age, which cannot be assessed in terms of money. Thus, the lives of the plaintiffs are thrown into dark and entire future is marred. Though the loss can be more in terms of cash, the plaintiffs are limiting their claim of damages at
Rs.20,00,000/- only in this suit.
That the unfortunate incident took place only due to the negligence of the Defendants and improper maintenance and supervision of the 111
K.V. lines in Chinna Adiserlapally village and due to their negligence the incident occurred. Thus, all the defendants are responsible for the death of the deceased on account of the electrocution on the said date. The above facts constitute the cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit and claiming damages of Rs.20,00,000/- from the defendants as compensation for the death of said Indrakanti Venkat Reddy. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to sue the defendants and they are liable to answer. Hence the suit and the prayer to decree the suit in terms of the prayer made in the plaint.
2. The defendant No.4 filed written statement which is adopted by other contesting defendants and denied all the averments of the plaint and further stated that the suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous, and baseless and far away from the truth. The plaintiffs suppressed all real facts and came to the Hon’ble court without clean hands. So, it is suffering from the well noted Maxim
“One who seeks Justice must come with clean hands”
It is further submitted that this defendant is not aware about the deceased proceeding on 13.02.2014 at 6.15 a.m., on his bicycle to his garden, on the way came into contact with the electric snapped wire, died
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
4 on the spot, reporting the manner to police by his brother, and that the police conducted inquest, holding post mortem examining the body, opening that the deceased died due to electric shock. It is true that 11KV line on Chinna Adiserlapally emanating from 33/11 KV Kondamallepally
Sub-station. The sub-station operator test charged the feeder and declared as Break Down and also stated that the deceased died due to electrical shock, there is no negligence on the part of these defendants. It is a vis-major (Act of God). It is submitted that TSPDCL is paying
Rs.1,00,000/- to the next kin of the deceased as an Ex-gratia in all the electrical accident cases, involving electrical lines of the company. It is also further submitted that the improper maintenance and supervision of the 11kV lines or in supervising the lines. The heavy load line was snapped accidentally due to defect of manufacturer of the said cable wire but not due to the negligence of these defendants. As such these defendants are not responsible for the death of the deceased on account of electrocution on the said date and there is no cause of action for filing the suit and the same is invented for the purpose of filing suit. Hence, this defendant prays the Hon’ble Court be pleased to dismiss the above suit with costs in the interest of justice.
3. Basing on the above rival contentions, my learned predecessor settled the following Issues for trial:
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit amount
together with interest @ 24 % per annum till the date of
payment of the said amount?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled with suit costs are prayed for?
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
5
4) To what relief?
4. Heard the counsel for plaintiffs who says plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the daughters of late Venkat Reddy who died due to electric shock while he was going on his motorcycle to his sweet orange garden. That the said death was due to the 11 KV electric wire snapping in land in Sy.No.99 which resulted in the deceased coming into contact with the said live wire and succumbing to the electric shock on the spot. He therefore, says that the oral and documentary evidence in the form of three witnesses that are examined and also the documents marked sustain the claim for the compensation claimed by the plaintiffs. He, therefore, says the suit be decreed as prayed for.
5. On the contrary the counsel appearing for defendants argues that no statutory notice as required under Sec.80 CPC was given prior to the filing of the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground only. He further says that due to heavy winds and gales, the wire snapped and there was no negligence on the part of the defendants in causing the death of the deceased which was purely accidental and act of god and that realizing its responsibility, the defendants paid an exgratia amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiffs and the same is sufficient and the defendants cannot be further burdened with any other compensation or damages as the same is clearly not tenable. He prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
ISSUE NO 1 : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the defendants?
6. PW1 the wife of the deceased narrated how on 13.2.2014 at about 6.15 am her husband was proceeding on his motorcycle in order to go to his sweet orange garden, then at outskirts of China Adisherlapally village in
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
6 the land of one G.Chandraiah bearing survey number 99, one 11 KV electric wire snapped and the deceased came in to contact with the same and died on the spot due to electric shock.
7. According to PW1, the complaint was given to the police which is evident from the fact that there was a case in Cr.No.61 of 2014 of PS
Deverakonda registered and Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR issued in the said crime. According to PW1, the investigation in the case commenced and
Ex.A2 is the inquest report, whereas Ex.A3 is the postmortem examination report of the said Indrakanti Venkat Reddy and thereafter Ex.A4 is the final report wherein the death was treated as accidental and not due to any negligence or careless act or omission of any individual or person or institution. The perusal of the postmortem examination report Ex.A3 goes to show that death happened due to electric shock and there is scene of offence panchanama in the form of Ex.A5. So therefore the death of said
Indrakanti Venkat Reddy being caused by electric shock is not at all disputed and even the defendants are admitting the said fact and are also saying that on humanitarian grounds a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was given as ex- gratia to the plaintiffs for the death of Indrakanti Venkat Reddy in a case of electric shock from the wires of the defendants.
8. Thus in this case apart from testimony of PW1 there are another two persons who talked about the death of I.Venkat Reddy. In fact PW2 says he along with the deceased were going on the motor bike and then the live electric line snapped and came in contact with the deceased who died and nothing happened to him even though he was a pillion rider on the motorcycle. The same in itself cannot be a doubtful aspect of this case.
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
7
9. Both PWs.1 and 2 talked of even PW2 going along with the deceased but in this case only the deceased died whereas nothing happened to PW2.
In her cross-examination PW1 says that her husband was the rider of the motorcycle whereas PW2 was its pillion rider and she says the pillion rider i.e., PW2 did not suffer any electric shock.
10. PW3 was the person who lodged the complaint pursuant to which
Ex.A1 copy of FIR was issued and he also talks of the death of I.Venkat
Reddy in a electric shock accident. He also talks of what the said Indrakanti
Venkat Reddy was doing and earning and how the plaintiffs were dependent on him.
11. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 gave evidence and in the same the death of the deceased is not disputed and he too admits the death but says the defendants are not responsible and liable in as much as the same was act of god and purely an accident, as such, after the police investigated the matter and filed the final report Ex.A4, in which no one was held responsible and liable for the same and the same was held to be purely accidental death. Further it is the stand of the defendants that the heavy load line snapped accidentally due to defect of manufacturer of the said cable wire but not due to the negligence of these defendants in maintaining the line. As such they are not responsible and liable to pay any compensation.
12. In this case, since the defendants are in the business and doing the work of supply of electricity through their wires and cables and they supply the same to various consumers, their very nature of work involves their primary responsibility and liability which is strict in dealing with the transmission and supply of electricity through wires and cables and they just
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
8 cannot take shelter of any plea or defence of there being any act of god or winds or gales. In fact, due to winds and gales, which is quite normal the defendants are expected to take steps and to see that their live wires do not get snapped and no electrocution or for that matter any living being and property is damaged in the said process. So, therefore, in this case the liability of the defendants is primarily and strict. This Court is fortified in that regard as in the case of Superintending Engineer (Elec.), Operation
Circle, Medak and Ors. vs. Jangiti Bhommamma (19.02.2018 - HYHC) :
MANU/AP/0116/2018 wherein it is held as under:
“13. From the pleadings, evidence brought on record and the contentions, it is apparent that the deceased met with untimely death due to electrocution, that is, due to the falling of a snapped live 11 KV electric wire upon him while going on a bicycle. The plaintiff relies upon the principle of 'strict liability' and the principle enshrined in the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' and inter alia contends that the initial onus of proof is on the defendants and that the defendants failed to discharge the said onus of proof and that in view of the said principles, the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation claimed and that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position obtaining, the decree and judgment of the trial Court are sustainable and that the appeal of the defendants is liable for dismissal being devoid of merit. Per contra, the defendants contend that there is no negligence on their part and that on the day of the incident, there was a gale and blowing of heavy winds and that for that reason the electric wire snapped and fell on the deceased and others, who were negligently and carelessly riding their bicycles, and that the incident was due to the 'Act of God' and that in any view of the matter, the deceased, who proceeded on a bicycle on a windy day, contributed to the incident/accident and hence, the incident resulting in the death of the deceased had occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased as well.
14.1 Dealing first with the principle of 'strict liability', it is to be noted that it is undisputed that the defendants are carrying out generation and transmission of electricity and that the said activity is an inherently hazardous and risky activity which endangers human lives. In such circumstances, the defendants' activity would be governed by the principle of 'strict liability' enunciated in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) 3 HL 330 wherein Blackburn, J, observed thus:
'The true rule of law is that the person, who for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.'
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
9
This rule of 'strict liability' gained recognition in India and this principle is quoted with approval in a legion of decisions. (See: Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India [MANU/SC/0285/1990 : (1990)1 SCC 613]; Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [MANU/SC/0469/1987 : (1987) 3 SCC 234]; and Koushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., [MANU/SC/0002/2001: (2001) 2 SCC 9].
In a leading case of Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks (1865) 3 H & C 596, it was observed as under: - 'Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.' In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India MANU/SC/0092/1986 : (1987) 1 SCC 395, the Supreme Court has gone even beyond the rule of 'strict liability' and held as follows:
'Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.' 14.2 In the present case, the defendants are making an endeavour to rely on the exception to the rule of 'strict liability' by submitting that the incident is due to an 'Act of God'. 'Act of God' or 'Vis Major' can be invoked in respect of acts beyond human control and contemplation caused due to superior natural forces. Thus, the phrase 'Act of God' can be defined as an event which is beyond the control of any human agency. Such acts happen exclusively due to natural reasons and cannot be prevented even while exercising caution and foresight. The defendants can escape from liability if the incident like the present incident occasioned because of some unforeseen and natural event which could not have been controlled in any manner. However, the natural events like gale and heavy blowing winds are not uncommon. Therefore, foreseeing such natural events, the defendants are expected to lay and maintain the electrical lines in such a way that such snapping of live wires do not occur during such natural events. Further, during occurrences like gale and blowing of heavy winds, the defendants are expected to shut down the supply to avoid any untoward incident.
14.3 The defence is that due to gale and blowing of heavy winds the live wire snapped and fell on the cyclist/the deceased and that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants and that the falling of the live wire on that day is due to an 'Act of God'. No suggestions in line with the defence are put to PW 1. However, PW 1 stated that on that day the sky was cloudy and it was winter season. DW 1, who was the then Assistant Engineer, deposed that 11 KV conductor snapped and fell due to gale and wind and that three persons who were going on their cycles came into contact with live wire and died on the spot and that the break down and falling of the 11 KV wire on that day was only due to heavy gale and wind and that the
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
10 season is not a rainy season. He further deposed that after knowing about the breakdown of the line, he deputed his staff and that the lineman and the helper restored normalcy. It is not in evidence that on that day any other similar incidents of snapping of the wire or falling of electrical poles had happened in that vicinity on account of the inclement weather conditions. Therefore, this incident appears to be a stray incident. It is for the defendants to plead and establish that the wires were properly laid and are periodically attended to and are being maintained to avoid any such untoward incidents. No records are produced and no evidence is brought on record by the defendants to show that the defendants maintained the lines in good and safe conditions and that they carried out periodical inspections of the lines and have taken safety precautions to see that the roads over which the lines are laid are safe for the users. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the principle of 'strict liability' and the principle enshrined in the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur', it follows that the defendants are liable to pay the compensation. In the opinion of this Court, in case the electrical wire snaps and falls, unless rebutted, an inference that there has been carelessness and negligence on the part of the authority, which has the responsibility to maintain it, is irresistible. In this context, it is profitable to refer to the decision in M.P. Electricity Board MANU/SC/0020/2002 : (2002) 2 SCC 162 (supra). The facts in this cited case are as follows: - 'A live wire got snapped and fell on the public road which was partially inundated with rain water; not noticing the same a cyclist rode over the wire and the wire twitched and snatched him; he was instantaneously electrocuted; a claim of damages made by his dependants was resisted by the State Electricity Board on the ground that the electrocution was due to clandestine pilferage of electricity committed by a stranger who unauthorisedly siphoned the electric energy from the supply line.' In this backdrop, while confirming the directions of the High Court to the Board to pay the compensation of Rs. 4.34 lakhs, the Supreme Court noted in that case that the Board made an endeavour to rely on the exception to the rule of strict liability viz., 'act of a stranger' and held that the said exception is not available to the Board as the act attributed to the stranger should reasonably have been anticipated or at any rate its consequences should have been prevented by the appellant Board. The Supreme Court also quoted with approval the findings of the Supreme Court in the decision in M.C. Mehta (supra). The said findings are already referred to supra. In the instant case, the risk involved in the operation undertaken by the defendants was so great that a high degree of care was expected of them and they ought to have anticipated the possibility of snapping of live wire on account of gale and heavy winds and ought to have taken necessary precautions but they failed to do so. Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to be absolved from liability on the plea of 'Act of God'. Be that as it may.
14.4 Dealing with the principle enshrined in the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' and the contention that the initial onus of proof is on the defendants and that the defence is untenable in view of the principle of 'strict liability', it is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Motukuri Bheemavva's case MANU/AP/0617/1997 : 1997(6) ALD 217 (supra). The facts and the factual finding in the above cited case are as follows: 'The deceased died due to electrocution by coming into contact with a snapped live wire, which is lying on the ground; and, his death occurred while he was riding a bicycle.
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
11
Therefore, his wife, minor son and mother made a claim for compensation. The defendants were sought to be made liable on account of negligence and failure to take reasonable precautions like provision of wire mesh to prevent the snapped wire from falling on the ground, automatic tripping of power supply in the event of wire snapping, lack of proper maintenance and regular checking to prevent wires from snapping due to poor stringing or ageing and failure to post a helper in the Village etcetera. However, apart from other contentions, the defendants pleaded that the wire snapped due to heavy rain and gale during the night, i.e., due to vis major; but, not on account of any negligence on the part of the defendants. It was further pleaded in the defence that according to Electricity Rules no wire mesh was required to be provided over a cart-track and that there was no facility for automatic tripping in case of low tension lines and that a helper was posted in the village and that he did not receive intimation about snapping of the electric wire. A plea of contributory negligence was also raised stating that the deceased went near the fence and came into contact with the live wire. On facts, the Court found that the deceased must have involuntarily come into contact with the live wire while passing on the way and that no contributory negligence could be attributed to him.' In this backdrop, this Court having referred to the decisions of various other High Courts & of the Supreme Court and the Rule of Strict liability laid down in the decision in Ryland v. Fletcher and also a relevant passage in Halsbury's Laws of England volume 34, held in paragraph 13 of the cited judgment, as follows: ' It is thus clear from the decided cases that the burden of proof in a case of this nature rests on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence on its part but not on the plaintiff to prove negligence.' The facts of the cited case are almost akin to the case on hand and the ratio in the cited decision squarely apply to the facts of the instant case.
15. For the afore stated reasons, this Court finds that the defences advanced by the defendants are of no avail and that the contentions of the defendants that they are not liable to pay the compensation are devoid of merit and are liable for rejection. The said contentions are accordingly rejected.
16. Dealing finally with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest, it is to be noted that the trial court awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- [Rs.1,40,000/- towards damages for loss of life of the deceased son of the plaintiff; and, Rs. 25,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the plaintiff] together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till date of realisation. By any standards that may be applied, the said compensation awarded to the mother of the deceased cannot be said to be high and excessive and on the other hand it is only a bare minimum amount of compensation. In that view of the matter, the contentions of the defendants that the ex gratia amount of Rs. 5,000/- has to be deducted from out of the compensation amount and that the interest awarded, is on the higher side and that the same requires to be reduced need no countenance, as deduction of the ex gratia amount and reduction of interest would result in denying just, fair and reasonable compensation to the plaintiff.
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
12
17. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed with costs. The appellants- defendants are given two months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to deposit into the trial Court the amount due under the decree. On such deposit the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest and costs. On failure of the defendants to deposit the amount, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed to recover the amounts due under the decree in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall also stand dismissed.”
13. So, it is very clear from the above settled case law that the liability of the defendants is primarily there and they have to compensate to the death of human life in the form of death of the said Indrakanti Venkat Reddy in electric shock and the same being due to their electric wire snapping resulting in the death. In no way the defence of the defendants is tenable and acceptable and they have to simply comply the requirements of this sort of cases wherein the matter and the law and the issues are settled and decided.
14. In this case, PWs.1 and 3 are claiming a sum of Rs.20 lakhs towards the compensation amount and according to PWs.1 and 3, the deceased was aged 48 years and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. PW1 admitted that she has not filed any document showing the educational qualification of her husband and also to prove the age. She also admits that she has not filed title deed of the extent of lands that they owned.
According to PW3, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.45,000/- per annum. Exs.A7 to A9 are income tax returns prior to the accident and no return of the year immediately preceding the accident is filed. So, before this Court there is no clear income proof of the deceased and his exact age. The document Ex.A11 is showing the annual income as Rs.45,000/-.
So, therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs that their deceased person was
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
13 earning Rs.20,000/- per month will make the income as Rs.2,40,000/- per annum. But Ex.A11 is only showing annual income as Rs.45,000/-. The returns are showing income of more than Rs.2 lakhs per annum, but this
Court taking into consideration the entire facts of this case is not applying the multiplier method to determine the compensation in as much as the defendants are made liable under an implied obligation, responsibility and liability because they are supplying electricity and the said work involves obviously danger to human life if any one comes into contact with live electrical wires. There is no express obligation or contractual relationship between the defendants and the deceased as in the case of motor vehicles accident compensation, as such, the principles of multiplier method or manner of compensation that is calculated in motor vehicles accident compensation cannot applied to the instant case.
15. It is now settled aspect and also the fact of which, judicial notice can be taken is that the Government and various statutory bodies and organizations as a part of their responsibility are providing one time compensation or benefit of Rs.5 lakhs for death of any individual that occurs unintentionally and accidentally. In the case of Anil Kumar Gupta
vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (05.07.2016 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0727/2016 it was observed as under. Where the case was
of electric shock of people travelling over roof top or the train.
17. In the backdrop of the aforesaid precedents, in our view, it must be expected of the persons concerned to be aware of the inherent danger in allowing the train to run with such speed having large number of persons travelling on roof top. Though the people who travelled on roof top also contributed to the mishap, the Railway Administration, in our view, was not free from blame. Concluding so, we direct that the next of kin of those who died in the incident and those who sustained injuries must be duly compensated by the Railway Administration. Those who died were obviously very young in age for they had come to compete for the jobs.
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
14
Taking all these factors in consideration we direct Railway Administration to pay:
(a) Compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the next of kin in case of every death;
(b) Compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakhs in every case of permanent disability suffered by anyone in the incident;
(c) Compensation of Rs. 75,000/- in case of any grievous injury suffered by anyone; and
(d) Compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in case of simple injury suffered by anyone.
So, therefore, in this case also the plaintiffs have not at all made out a case for grant of compensation of Rs.20 lakhs as prayed in the plaint and they are only entitled for one-time compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the death of said Indrakanti Venkat Reddy and that too since PW1 as well as DW1 have accepted that ex-gratia amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid to the plaintiffs.
Thus from the said sum of Rs.5 lakhs, the sum of Rs.1 lakh which is already paid is to be deducted and therefore, the plaintiffs are only entitled for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as just compensation for the death of I.Venkat
Reddy in an accident involving electric shock. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO 2 : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit
amount together with interest @ 24 % per annum till the date of payment of the said amount?
16. The plaintiffs made a claim of 24% interest on the compensation amount, but this Court finds that since the defendants are made responsible and liable under the principles of strict liability and since the defendants themselves are statutory Corporation to them, the principle of Sec.80 CPC will not apply in the considered view of this court and even otherwise on that technicality the humane compensation that is being granted cannot be denied which is as per
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
15 the settled para meters and norms. So, the plaintiffs are not entitled for 24% per annum interest as claimed in the plaint and are only entitled for 9% per annum simple interest from the date of filing this plaint till the date of realization. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO 3 : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled with suit costs
are prayed for?
17. Since the plaintiff incurred costs in filing the suit and prosecuting the suit, they are entitled for the costs that are legally permissible and admissible. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO 4 : To what relief?
18. From the discussion above and the factum of the events that lead to the death of I.Venkat Reddy, this Court grants just compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for which the reasons are given supra and are in consonance with the preponderance of proof and the facts of this case. The same suffices for the purpose of this case.
19. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- with 9% per annum simple interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.
Partly typed to my dictation by the Steno, partly dictated to the Steno, transcribed and typed by him, added substantially by me on my system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9 th day of July, 2019.
Special Sessions Judge For SC/STs (POA) Act Cases CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, Nalgonda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.
16
PLAINTIFFS:
PW-1 Indrakanti Nirmala PW-2 Vasukula Lingaiah PW-3 Indrakanti Satyanarayana Reddy
DEFENDANTS:
DW-1 P. Jana Reddy,
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A-1 is the attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.61 of 2014 of PS Deverakonda Ex.A-2 is the attested copy of inquest panchanama Ex.A-3 is the attested copy of P.M.E report Ex.A-4 is the attested copy of Final report Ex.A-5 is the attested copy of Scene of offence Panchanama along with rough sketch map Ex.A-6 is the CC of Extract of amendment Register for the year 2014- 2015 Ex.A-7 is the income tax returns for the year 2008-09 Ex.A-8 is the income tax returns for the year 2009-10 Ex.A-9 is the income tax returns for the year 2010-2011 Ex.A-10 is the Driving license of the deceased I.Venkat Reddy Ex.A-11 is the House hold Card of the deceased I.Venkat Reddy Ex.A-12 is the Original Pan Card of I.Venkat Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT
NIL
Special Sessions Judge For SC/STs (POA) Act Cases CUM
VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Nalgonda.
O.S.NO. 46 OF 2014 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/STS (POA) ACT CASES CUM VII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NALGONDA.