IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT
KARIMNAGAR.
PRESENT: SMT M.VANI,
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR
Tuesday, the 14th day of November, 2023
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.21 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
Kalva Thirupathi, S/o Mallaiah, age: 23 years, Occ: Nil (Permanently Disabled), R/o Putnur Village of Ramagundam Mandal of Peddapalli District. .....Plaintif
A N D
1. Mohd.Abdul Rasheed, S/o M.A.Hameed, age: 49 years, Occ: Lineman, TSNPDCL, R/o H.NO.6-2-285, Hussainipura, Karimnagar.
2. Thoutu Srinivas, S/o Narayana, age: 32 years, Occ: Assistant Lineman, TSNPDCL, R/o Kokkarakunta Village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District.
3. Assistant Engineer, TSNPDCL, Pachunur Feeder, Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District.
4. Assistant Divisional Engineer, TSNPDCL, Alugunur, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District.
5. Divisional Engineer (Rural), TSNPDCL, Karimnagar.
6. Superintending Engineer, TSNPDCL, Karimnagar.
7. M/s Chaitanya Enterprises, Hanmakonda, Contractor in Civil and Electrical Works, R/by Akula Nagaraju, H.No.2-5- 82/1, Beside e-Seva Center, Nakkalagutta, Hanumakonda.
…...Defendants 1 to 7
Page Nos. 2 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
This suit coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri E.Dilleshwar Reddy, Advocate for Plaintif, Sri M.Sudhakar, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2, Smt.R.V.Geetha Reddy, Advocate for defendants 3 to 6 and Sri N.Parameshwar, Advocate for defendant No.7; and upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This suit is fled under Order VII Rules 1 & 2 read with
Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the defendants 1 to 7, for grant of compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees seventy Lakhs only), on account of injuries sustained by the plaintif/Kalva Thirupathi, due to the negligent act of the defendants, as prayed for.
2.1The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintif hails from Putnur Village of Ramagundam Mandal of Peddapalli
District, he is residing at H.No.3-6-203, Adarshnagar,
Karimnagar, who works as skilled labor for laying middle poles (loose line) work of Electricity Department in Telangana State through authorized agency of defendant No.7, on monthly wages of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees ffteen thousand only). The said agency/D7 was carrying works of middle poles of Telangana
State Electricity Depart at Utnoor village of Manakondur Mandal, that on 12.03.2016 at 10:20 am, one Srungarapu Bhaskar, who
Page Nos. 3 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
also engaged on the said work, in order to attend the work of middle poles, he went to the defendants 1 and 2 at Pachunur
Feeder, took line clearance No.34159 LC, then the plaintif carried the work by fxing two poles and at about 11:45 hours, when he was working on third middle pole, all of a sudden, the plaintif received electric shock, sustained burn injuries on his right hand, right leg and buttocks and fell upon the pole. In view of the negligence and recklessness acts of the defendants 1 and 2, who are the employees of the Electricity Department, the plaintif sustained burn injuries and is working under the control of the defendants 3 to 6, who directed the Operator to switch on the power in the main line while the plaintif was still attending the work on the electric pole.
2.2.On complaint lodged by S.Bhaskar, Supervisor, the Police
Manakondur registered a case in Cr.No.54 of 2016 under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code against the defendants 1 and 2, which is still pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Karimnagar.
2.3. The plaintif submits that after the accident, the plaintif was shifted to Life-Line Hospital, Karimnagar in 108 Ambulance where he took treatment as in-patient from 12.03.2016 to
Page Nos. 4 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
31.03.2016 where his right fore-arm was amputated above elbow level from where he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital,
Hyderabad where he took treatment as in-patient from 31.03.2016 to 21.04.2016 and again he was shifted to Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad where he was treated as in-patient from 22.04.2016 to 27.09.2016 where his right leg was amputated and also underwent plastic surgery, therefore, the Medical Board disabled him permanently at 100%. Further, the plaintif was discharged with an advice to have follow up treatment, complete bed rest and after discharge, he also took treatment as out-patient by visiting hospital, due to which he incurred
Rs.10,00,000/- and odd for his treatment, transportation and extra-nourishment, etc., by swallowing costly medicines, on the advice of the doctors till-to-day, on the bed-rest status continuously without doing any work, due to amputation of both limbs, to that efect, he lost his earning power and capacity and he is inserted pipe for releasing excreta in the sachet.
2.4. The plaintif further submits that he was a skilled labour and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, as on the date of accident occurred and he was sufering from excruciating pain and mental trauma and he has to live with it till his last breathe,
Page Nos. 5 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
has to remains bachelor and he has to depend on attendant being bread winner of the family and he has one unmarried sister and his father died in recent times and that he has been sufering from amputations due to burning injuries all over his body and if he is not met with the accident, he is sure he would marry and he performed the marriage of his sister and he looks after his mother who is old aged lady and he would secure a
Government Job and lead peaceful life, therefore, the plaintif is claiming compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- against the defendants 1 to 7 and they are liable to pay the compensation to the plaintif jointly and severally and vicariously to the plaintif.
Hence this suit.
3.The learned counsel for defendant No.4 fled written statement on his behalf ie., on behalf of other defendants A memo is fled by D3, D5 and D6 adopting the Written Statement of D1, D2 and D4. They denied all the allegations made in the plaint fled by the plaintif. They denied that the plaintif is a skilled labour, earning Rs.15,000/- per month under defendant
No.7. They admitted conducting middle pole work entrusted to defendant No.7, defendant No.2 obtained Line Clearance from the Sub-Station on 12.03.2016 for the lines of Ootur Rural,
Page Nos. 6 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
Vachunur Feeder and there is one express line which was on breakdown. As per the request, the LC was provided vide LC
No.34159 accord, that the workers lifted three middle poles and the plaintif sat on the pole across arm and stringing the conductor (electric wire) from the ground with the help of rope, that the plaintif received electric shock and fell down from the pole and received injuries, then, the plaintif was shifted to hospital by the defendant No.2, with help of other workers.
They contended that the defendants never directed the operator to switch on the power supply as stated in the paragraph. In fact, the defendant No.2 is very much available on the work spot and he was on duty and erecting the poles. They denied that after the accident, the defendant No.7’s employee gave complaint to the police Manakondur against the defendants 1 and 2. They contended that the lifting of middle pole work is entrusted to Akula Nagaraju vide contract agreement No.AGT- 36/2014-15, later extended for 2016-17. They contended that the contractor has to take permission from the defendants 1 to 4 and to execute the work under the supervision of the defendant
No.3. Defendants 1 and 2 have to seek permission whenever he required line clearance, tree cutting, power cutting at HT/LT
Page Nos. 7 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
lines and line crossings and obtained technical suggestions from the defensants 3 and 4 and fled staf of the defendants. They contended that he might have not obtained the suggestions, he rashly and negligently stringing the electric wires from the ground with help of rope and that the said accident was occurred due to his own negligence. They admitted that after the accident, the plaintif was shifted to life-line hospital with the help of defendant No.2 and other workers, later shifted to other hospitals. They denied that the plaintif incurred Rs.10,00,000/- for his treatment, transportation, extra-nourishment, etc. They contended that the compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- is excessive and further denied that the accident occurred due to the negligence act of the defendants 1 to 6. They contended that the injured plaintif did not follow the instructions of defendants 1 to 3, therefore, there is no negligence on the part of defendants 1 to 6, hence, they are not liable to pay compensation to the plaintif and the defendant No.7 is solely responsible for the said accident, thereby prayed to dismiss the suit.
4.The counsel for the defendant No.7 fled written statement, denying all allegations made in the plaint. He admitted that the
Page Nos. 8 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
plaintif used to work as skilled laborer for laying Middle Poles (Loose Line) work of Electricity Department in Telangana State through their agency on a monthly wages of Rs.15,000/- per month. He further admitted that the defendant No.7 was carrying the work of Middle Poles of Telangana State Electricity
Department at Utoor village of Manakondur Mandal. He contended that on 12.03.2016 at about 10:20 am, one
Srungarapu Bhaskar was also engaged on the said work of
Middle Poles, went to the defendants 1 and 2 at Pachunur
Feeder and took line clearance No.34159 LC from them. He further contended that at about 11:45 hours, while the plaintif was working on the third middle pole, all of a sudden, he received electric shock, sustained burn injuries on right hand, right leg and buttocks and fell down from the pole, due to the negligence and recklessness of defendants 1 and 2, who are working under the control of defendants 3 to 6, as they directed the operator to switch on the power in the main line while the plaintif was still attending the work, on the electric pole. He admitted that S.Bhaskar lodged a complaint before the police concerned against the defendants 1 and 2, after the accident.
He admitted that the negligence was on the defendants 1 and 2
Page Nos. 9 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
who are the employees of Electricity Department and they are working under the control of defendants 3 to6 who are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the plaintif. He further contended that there was no fault on the plaintif.
Therefore, the defendant No.7 is not liable to pay compensation to the plaintif. Therefore, the defendants 1 to 6 are liable to pay the compensation to the plaintif and pays to dismiss the suit against the defendant No.7.
5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:
1.Whether the incident occurred due to rash and negligent acts of defendants 1 and 2 who are the employees of Electricity Department of Telangana State and working under control of defendants 3 to 6 as alleged by the plaintiff
2.Whether the plaintif is entitled to compensation from defendants 1 to 7, as prayed forf
3.To what relieff
6.On his behalf, Plaintif got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14. PWs.2 to 4 are examined through the Advocate-Commissioner and one Shrungarapu
Bhaskar is examined as PW5 and Dr.Ch.Pradeep Kumar is examined as PW6, on behalf of the plaintif and no documents
Page Nos. 10 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
adduced on their behalf. On the other hand, on behalf of defendants, defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW1 and one Fasih Ahmed is examined as DW2 and got marked Ex.B.1.
7.Heard both sides and perused the record. The counsel for plaintif fled written arguments and the counsels for defendants fled their written arguments separately.
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the incident occurred due to rash and negligent acts of defendants 1 and 2 who are the employees of Electricity Department of Telangana State and working under control of defendants 3 to 6, as alleged by the plaintiff
8.In order to prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif himself is examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief-examination-afdavit and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A14. Ex.A1 is the certifed copy of First Information Report along with complaint in Cr.No.54 of 2016 of Manakondur Police
Station. Ex.A2 is the certifed copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 is the certifed copy of Medical Certifcate issued by Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad. Ex.A4 is the Legal Notice issued by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 to 7 to grant compensation. Ex.A5 is the salary certifcate issued by M/s Chaitanya Enterprises,
Page Nos. 11 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
Registered by Akula Nagaraju Contractor. Ex.A6 is the Disability
Certifcate issued by Medical Board, Government Hospital,
Peddapalli. Ex.A7 is the Discharge Summary along with Lab reports issued by Life Line Multi Special Hospital, Karimnagar.
Ex.A8 is the Discharge Summary book issued by Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad. (Subject to Objection). Ex.A9 is the
Discharge Summary issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.A10 is the Discharge bill for Rs.8,04,969/- issued by Yashoda
Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A11 is a bunch of Diagnostic bills (21) in number issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A12 is a bunch of Cash bills (24) in number issued by Laxmi Medicals,
Hyderabad and Apollo Reach Hospital, Karimnagar. Ex.A13 is the
Photographs of the Petitioner (3) in number along with C.D.
Ex.A14 is the Memorandum of Marks for 7th Class of the petitioner.
9.PW-1 deposed in his evidence that on 12.03.2016 while he was laying middle pole after taking line clearance No. 341519 LC at Pachnur Feeder at 11.45 hours he received electric shock due to negligence and recklessness of D1 and D2 who directed the operator to switch on the power in the main line. The learned
Page Nos. 12 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
counsel for the Plaintif fled a chief afdavit Ex.A1 to A14 got exhibited. Ex.A8 is the subject to objection.
10.The learned counsel for the defendants 3 to 6 cross- examined PW1, wherein, he has categorically stated that he worked as a skilled worker for the purpose of the salary under one Akula Nagaraju to attend the work on the electric pole and
Ex.A5 was fabricated by colluding with defendant No.7. Further he clearly admitted that in his cross examination that at the time of working he did not wear any scafolding, light belts, shock proof helmets etc., to avoid the accidents and also stated
D7 his contractor has not taken any precautions at working place and also not taken any precautions of line clearances regarding the works. Further he also stated that one Bhasker gave a complaint with regard to the accident which is pending in the Court negligence has been proved, the suit is not maintainable against the defendant No.1 to 6 as accordingly case was pending. He stated that there is no negligence on the part of the defendant No.1 to 6. Further during the cross examination of defendant No.7, PW1 also clearly stated that the accident occurred while workers doing the work and it is purely negligence on the part of Defendant No.7 and he is responsible
Page Nos. 13 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
for the electric shock burn injuries sufered by him so the Police fled a case against Defendant No.7 and electricity Department ie., D1 to D6 are only liable to pay damages or compensation to him. Further he admitted in his cross examination that there is a clause in the agreement i.e., Ex.B1, if any accident occurred due to electric shock after taking line clearance, so only electricity department or any risk shall be liable to pay the compensation to him for sustaining damages. Cross examination of defendant
No.1 and 2 cross examination same was adopted by defendant
No.3 to 6 and also cross examined PW1 he deposed that on 12.03.2016 Konda Sagar, Mangali Ramesh, Rupesh, Santhosh were working along with him, that the PW1 and Srinivas/D2,
Rasheed/D1 were also present along with him. He was working at Pachhunur and Utoor place at 9.00 a.m after taking L.C from the electricity department, the work will be started and the alleged day he worked on four poles and said accident occurred on the pole and also he clearly stated that he does not know whether there are express lines to Utoor village and whether there is a fow of air to the express line clearance to which the express lines touched accidentally with the lines of erecting wires and a heat was produced and electric shock occurred.
Page Nos. 14 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
Further he categorically stated in his cross examination that there is no negligence on the part of the defendant No.1 and 2.
Further he stated that Ex.A4 ie., Legal notice was received by defendant No.1 and 2 and he categorically stated that the defendant No1 and 2 are not liable for compensation and if any compensation to be awarded only defendant No.7 is liable.
11.The evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 adduced through the
Advocate-Commissioner appointed and accordingly their chief- examination and cross-examination was conducted.
12.In chief-examination, PW2 states that PW1 was admitted on 22.04.2016 at 9.30 pm, with 50% electrical burns in Yashoda
Hospital before he was shifted to Gandhi hospital, Hyderabad.
He states that PW1 had right below limb amputation of stump and was on colostomy, he was operated for the left over wounds to save life and supplicated wound healing. He states that the right above knee amputation was done on 03.05.2016 and on 02.08.2016, skin grafting was done and again for left over wounds on 21.09.2016, right side reversion amputation was done for the stump of right below limb wound in between he developed subsequent intestinal obstruction which was treated by the General Surgeon, Urologist, operation was taken for
Page Nos. 15 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
Urinary problem, the patient was discharged on 27.09.2016, therefore, he is required to follow up with both plastic surgeon and general surgery department, the plaintif required life time attendant to helping in daily activities of living, the patient is required attendant throughout his stay in the hospital. Ex.A.8 – discharge summary book issued by their hospital and Ex.A.3- medical certifcate also issued.
13.In cross-examination, PW2 admitted that it is a team work.
He deposed that the discharge summary was written as per the advice of the Head of the Department according to treatment given.
14.According to PW3, he states as per his chief-examination that PW1 came to their hospital with electrical burn injuries.
Accordingly, their hospital issued Ex.A.9 to Ex.A.11. In cross- examination, nothing is elicited.
15.According to PW4, he states as per his chief-examination that on 18.08.2017, PW1 came for assessment of his disability, as such the Medical Board examined him and assessed the disability as 99% to his right upper limb, right lower limb, impaired reach and post traumatic amputation of limbs
Page Nos. 16 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
permanently and issued disability certifcate to him and accordingly the patient is unable to move his upper limb and lower limbs which are amputated and above said disability is not reduced till-today. He states that the patient is required one attendant for his day-to-day activities throughout his life time and also he had colostomy i.e., he did not pass his stools via rectum and anus and he passes his tools via large intestine (colostomy). Ex.A.6 is the disability certifcate issued by the
District Medical Board, Peddapally, and the signature on it is identifed by him and also other members of the Medical Board
Signatures. In cross-examination, he admitted that he has not given any treatment to the patient.
16.One Shrungarapu Bhaskar is examined as PW5/eye witness who states in his chief-examination that he witnessed the accident occurred stating that plaintif is a skilled worker in laying poles work and he used to work as labour for laying middle poles work for the past two years prior to the accident and he is also working under defendant No.7’s enterprise. He states that he is carrying the works of middle poles of TSNPDCL,
Electricity Department at Utoor village of Manakondur District, that on 13.03.2016 at 10:20 am, on the instructions of his
Page Nos. 17 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
employer, while the plaintif was carrying the works of middle poles at Pachunur feeder, took line clearance No.34159 LC, later, while plaintif was carrying the work by fxing two poles, in the meantime, at about 11:45 hours, when the plaintif was working on the third middle pole, all of sudden, plaintif received electric shock and fell down from the pole with burn injuries, as a result, the plaintif sustained burn injuries on right hand, right leg and buttocks, on seeing the accident, he along with the Supervisor
Chippa Ramesh, Rupesh Masthri and other labourers rushed to the plaintif, observed the severe injuries and shifted him to the
Life Line Hospital, Karimnagar in an Ambulance. He further states that the incident occurred due to the negligence and recklessness act of Electricity Departmental Employees/ defendants 1 and 2, who are the Operators in Electricity
Department and switch on the power in the main line negligently while the plaintif was attending the work on the electric pole.
17.Coming to the cross examination of PW5 who is the eye witness to the accident and who is the electric contractor clearly stated that the incident happened due to the negligence of the
Electricity department only and not due to the negligence on the
Page Nos. 18 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
part of the defendant No.1 and 2. During the cross examination of defendant No.1 and 2 the counsel adopted the cross examination of defendant No.3 to 6. Further the PW5 in his cross examination is clearly admitted that after obtaining L.C i.e., line clearance work was started and he was present at the distance of 50 meters from the incident and defendant No.1 and 2 were present at that place and he also clearly admitted that there is no liability on the part of the defendant No.1 and 2.
18.In the testimony of PW6 in chief-examination that on 12.03.2016 at about 12:30 pm, the plaintif was brought to their hospital after he sufered from electric shock while he was working at Utoor village of Manakondur mandal, then, he admitted in their hospital and the injuries he noted - Extensive electric shock burns, deep burns involving: 1) right upper limb which was completely macerated dried and gangrenous up to elbow, 2) right lower limb from groin to region just below knee joint with completely burn and macerated muscles, 3) left lower limb from groin to lower thigh, 4) complete perineum from pubis to natal cleft with completely burnt scrotum, penis, perineum and peri- anal region with complete necrosis of skin and muscles, 5) sepsis and shock. The patient was treated in their
Page Nos. 19 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
hospital from 12.03.2016 to 31.03.2016, during which he underwent three surgeries – 1) right upper limb above elbow amputation and debridement of right thigh, left thigh and perineum on 13.03.2016, 2) through debridement of right thigh, left thigh and perineum on 18.03.2016 and 3) diversion colostomy on 22.03.2016 and on 31.03.2016, the patient/plaintif was referred to higher centre for further treatment. Ex.A7-discharge summary along with lab reports were issued by their hospital. The treatment was under cash treatment and Arogyasree Scheme is not available in their hospital. In their hospital, the expenditure was near about 10,00,000/-.
19.The learned counsel for defendants 3 to 6 cross-examined
PW6, wherein, PW6 deposed that the police have not examined him and not visited the hospital, except that nothing is elicited in cross-examination.
20.On the other hand, on behalf of defendants, defendant
No.2 is examined as DW1. He states in his chief-examination that on 12.03.2016, while he along with defendant No.1, Konda
Sagar, Mangali Ramesh, Rupesh, Santhosh and plaintif were conducting middle pole work,where the existing lines were
Page Nos. 20 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
loose and sag, the said middle pole lifting work was entrusted to defendant No.7 vide Contract Agreement No.AGT-36/2014-15, later on extent for 2016-2017 and the plaintif was employed with the defendant No.7. He states that the plaintif is not a skilled labour. He states that he obtained LC from the Sub-
Station vide LC No.34159 on 12.03.2016 at about 10:20 hours, for the lines of Utoor Rural, Vachunur feeder and LC was returned at 15:20 hours, that the workers lifted three middle poles and the plaintif sat on the pole cross arm and stringing the conductor (electric wire) from the ground with the help of rope, that the plaintif received electric shock at about 11:45 hours and fell down from the pole and received injuries, he was shifted to hospital. He states that it is the duty of defendant
No.1 to employ skilled workers and to get the work done with suitable instructions under the supervision of defendant No.3 and defendants 1 and 2 has to seek permission whenever he required line clearance, tree cutting, power cutting at HT/LT lines and line crossings and obtain technical suggestions from the defendants 3 and 4 and feld staf of the defendants 1 to 6.
He further states that the contractor has to take permission from the defendants 1 to 4 and should execute the work under
Page Nos. 21 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
supervision. Therefore, the defendants never directed the operator to switch on the power supply as stated in the plaint, prays to dismiss the suit.
21.The learned counsel for defendant No.7 cross-examined
DW1, wherein, DW1 admitted that the police has registered a case against him and Abdul Rasheed/defendant No.1 by colluding with defendant No.7. He admitted that the plaintif sustained injuries with severe induction and further on the date of incident, the LC was taken at that time, the induction was occurred, as a result, the plaintif fell down from the pole and sustained injuries and after he was shifted to hospital, further stated that the incident occurred only due to negligence of defendant No.7 only.
22.The learned counsel for the plaintif cross-examined DW1, wherein he admitted that the charge sheet has been fled by colluding with defendant No.7/contractor. He deposed that after registering FIR of four months, he came to know that a case has been registered against him and Abdul Rasheed/Linemen. He admitted that after knowing about the registration of case, he has not given any complaint to the Station House Ofcer, he went to the police station to give the complaint at that time the
Page Nos. 22 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
police ofcials also not present. He admitted that for the since six years, he has been attending the court/JMFC, Karimnagar in criminal case. He deposed that he has not fled any private complaint before the court including quash petition. He deposed that on the date of incident, while plaintif was attending the work at fourth pole, the incident occurred.
23.One Fasih Ahmed was examined as DW2, got marked
Ex.B.1 through him. Ex.B1 – Contract Agreement in between
Contractor M/s Chaitanya Enterprises, Warangal and Employer, the Chief General Manager, TSNPDCL, Warangal vide Agreement
No.36/2014-15, dated 09.03.2015. He denied all allegations made in the plaint and chief-examination. However, he admitted the factual facts. He denied the salary of the plaintif, as a skilled labour, used to work under defendant No.7. He states that the defendant No.7 has not taken precautionary measures regarding the safety of the employees during the work time. He admitted that defendants were conducting middle pole work, where the existing lines are loose and sag, the said work is entrusted to defendant No.7, the defendant No.2 obtained LC from the sub-station on 12.03.2016 for the lines of Ootur Rural,
Vachunur feeder and there is one express line which was on
Page Nos. 23 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
breakdown. He also speaks in similar lines of DW1 that cannot be reiterated. He admitted that after the accident, the plaintif was shifted to hospital with the help of defendant No.2 and other workers. He denied the plaintif spent Rs.10,00,000/- for his treatment, transportation, extra-nourishment, etc. The compensation of the plaintif is excessive and there is no negligence on the part of the defendants 3 to 6, as such they are not liable to pay compensation to the plaintif, prays to dismiss the suit.
24.During the cross examination of DW1 by the counsel for
DW7, he categorically deposed that police fled charge sheet against him and Abdul Rasheed by colluding with defendant
No.7 and he does not know whether the plaintif is a skilled labour or not and plaintif sustained injuries with severe induction on the date of the accident, the L.C was taken at that time the induction was occurred, as a result the plaintif fell down from the pole and sustained injuries and after he was shifted to hospital and the incident occurred due to negligence of the defendant No.1 to 6 and again the witness categorically stated that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the defendant No.7 only and also due to the negligence of
Page Nos. 24 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
defendant No.1, 2 and 7. Further during the cross examination by the plaintif counsel DW1 is clearly stated that the FIR, charge sheet has been fled by colluding with defendant
No.7/contractor. After registering the FIR of four months he came to know that the case has been registered on DW1 and Abdul
Rasheed/Linemen. Further after registration of the case he has not given any complaint to the Station House Ofcer, when he went to police station for giving a complaint and the police ofcials were not present.
25.During the cross examination of DW2 by the plaintif counsel he testifed that on 12.03.2016 the defendant No.7 obtained line clearance permission from Electricity Department staf of Veldi Sub Station. Further he stated that after information given by the defendant No.7 if the work is completed then only they will restore the power to that line.
After completion of part of the work i.e., after one hour the incident took place while installing of third pole and the incident took place due to the electricity shock of induction and the department is liable as per the contract agreement. The counsel for the defendant No.7 is cross examined by the counsel for defendant No.1 and 2. He testifed that he executed the work
Page Nos. 25 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
agreement Ex.B1 with defendant No.7, it is true and also admitted that it is their duty not to pass any electric supply after giving line clearance till information that the work is completed on that day. Again witness categorically stated that before commencing of work the contractor personnel has to take the safety precautions with regarding to the lines. Further he clearly admitted that in Ex.B1 there is clause that the defendant No.7 has to take precautions in regarding the power supply after giving line clearance intimation. Further after the incident the
FIR, charge sheet was fled made enquiry on Electricity
Department it is pending and further he deposed that injured was working as worker on the day of the incident and he categorically admitted that incident has not taken place due to negligent of their staf without giving information about the work was completed to the contractor.
26.During the cross examination by the counsel for the defendant No.1 and 2. Defendant No.2 deposed that on 12.03.2016 the defendant No.1 and 2 were on duty and they have obtained line clearance and they were present at working place at the time of accident and the incident occurred due to induction of nearby 11 K.V line crossing (express line). The
Page Nos. 26 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
attested copy of L.C was confronted to the witness and admitted the same.
27.The learned counsel for defendant No.7 cross-examined
DW2, wherein, he admitted that they executed work agreement with defendant No.7. He admitted that it is their duty not to pass any electric supply after giving line clearance till information that until the work is completed on that day. Further he stated that before commencing the work contractor personnel has to take safety precautions regarding lines as per Ex.B1, there is a clause that the defendant No.7 should take precautions with regard to power supply after giving the line clearance intimation.
He admitted that after the incident, the charge sheet was fled by the Manakondur Police, after due enquiry against the
Electricity Department staf. He admitted that their department was made inquiry on the said persons and it is pending. He admitted that the above said persons were doing work in their department till today. He admitted that the injured was working as worker on the day of the incident.
28.The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 re- examined. Defendant No.2 wherein, he admitted that on 12.03.2016, defendants 1 and 2 were on duty. He admitted that
Page Nos. 27 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
they have obtained line clearance and also they were present at working place. He admitted that the incident occurred due to the induction of nearby 11 KV line crossing (express line). The
Attested copy of LC was confronted to the witness and admitted the same.
29.A careful scrutiny of the evidence adduced on either side, it is crystal clear that plaintif was not a skilled worker, who carried work under defendant No.7, as on the date of alleged accident on 12.03.2016 at about 11:45 hours at Pachunur
Feeder, he sustained electric shock when he was working on third pole, due to the negligence on the part of the defendants 3 to 7. The plaintif was shifted to various hospitals namely Life
Line Hospital, Karimnagar where the plaintif was admitted and taken treatment from 12.03.2016 to 31.03.2016, thereafter, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad where he was admitted and taken treatment from 31.03.2016 to 21.04.2016 and thereafter he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad where he was admitted and taken treatment from 22.04.2016 to 27.09.2016, as stated supra, he incurred huge loss, the documents clearly refects the same. It is clear through evidence of PW6 that his hospital issued Ex.A7 along with lab
Page Nos. 28 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
reports issued, the treatment was under cash treatment and his hospital has no Arogyasree Scheme Facility and the plaintif spent around Rs.10,00,000/-.
30.It also comes to light that after the electric shock, the plaintif sustained burn injuries all over the body, as shown in
Ex.A.3. PW1 deposed that he has been continuously working for 15 days. He deposed that in the morning at 9.00 am to 5.00 pm the line clearance will be obtained from the Electricity Ofcials.
31.On perusal of the evidence of PW1/injured in his cross examination he clearly stated that he did not wear any scafoldings, light belts, shock proof helmets etc., and further he stated that D1 and D2 are not liable to pay compensation and if any compensation is awarded only defendant No.7 is liable.
Coming to the evidence of PW5 who is an eye witness to the incident who also testifed that he was present at the place of the accident and there is no liability on the part of the defendant
No.1 and 2 in this regard.
32.Admittedly the plaintif was employee of defendant No.7/ contractor. Risk shall be borne by the defendant No.7 as he is liable as per the agreement of contract that is marked as Ex.B1
Page Nos. 29 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
and also defendant No.7 evidence was not adduced to rebut the evidence of PW1, PW-5, DW1 and DW2. Hence the defendant
No.7 is also liable to pay the compensation for not taking any precautionary and safety measures. Therefore, the defendant
No.7 is also accountable for the acts of his employee on par with the defendant No.3 to 6. Hence the defendant No.3 to 7 are liable to pay the compensation to the plaintif jointly and severally. The evidence of PW1, PW5 are the crucial witnesses to speak about the facts of the incident and so also the evidence of
PW2 to PW4 and PW6 are also corroborated with the evidence of
PW1 and PW5.
33.According to PW6, he patient/plaintif/PW1 was treated in their hospital from 12.03.2016 to 31.03.2016, during which he underwent three surgeries – 1) right upper limb above elbow amputation and debridement of right thigh, left thigh and perineum on 13.03.2016, 2) through debridement of right thigh, left thigh and perineum on 18.03.2016 and 3) diversion colostomy on 22.03.2016 and on 31.03.2016, the patient/plaintif was referred to higher center for further treatment. Ex.A7-discharge summary along with lab reports were issued by their hospital. The treatment was under cash
Page Nos. 30 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
treatment and Arogyasree Scheme is not available in their hospital. In their hospital, the expenditure was near about 10,00,000/-.
34.Both parties agreed upon the electric shock of the plaintif and sustaining injuries deposed in their respective evidence adduced. In view of burn injuries, the police inquired and registered a case against the defendants 1 and 2, as shown in
Ex.A1 and Ex.A.2. In that regard, the Electricity Department inquired the persons of the Department concerned, but no steps has been taken against the defendants 1 and 2 so far and they have been working in the department concerned, and it seems from the evidence the negligence is on the part of plaintif as to why the defendants fled a private complaint in that regard. It is also established that through the evidence of DW2 that on the date of accident, defendants 1 and 2 were present, which is admitted by PW1 through his evidence and DW2 further stated that the incident occurred due to the induction of nearby 11 KV line crossing (express line).
35.It is established in the evidence of PW1 and PW5 DW1 and
DW2 that on the date of the accident defendant No.1 and 2 were present along with PW1. Has already pointed out in the cross
Page Nos. 31 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
examination of PW1 done by the counsel for D1 and D2 he admitted that D1 and D2 were present along with him he also deposed that Konda Sagar, Mangali Ramesh, Rupesh, Santhosh were also working with him in the presence of PW5 at theplace of the incident is not whispered by PW1 in his evidence the evidence of PW5 that the accident occurred due to negligence and recklessness of D1 and D2 who are the operators in the electricity department and switched on the power on the main line negligently while the plaintif was attending the work on the electric pole is quite improbable and untrustworthy and hence cannot be believed. Moreover, PW1 in his chief examination deposed that D1 and D2 directed the operator to switch on the main line while he was attending the work on electric pole. The name of the Operator is also not mentioned by PW1 but according to the evidence of PW5, DW1 and 2 are the operators.
It is pertinent to point out that PW1 having admitted in his cross examination that D1 and D2 were along with him at the spot of work there is no probability of D1 and D2 switching on the main line or ordering any other person to switch on main line none of the workmen referred to by PW1 in his evidence as persons working along with him or examined by the Plaintif. Assuming
Page Nos. 32 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
that the operator or D1 and D2 are switching on the main line while PW1 was still on the pole and working lot of hue and cry could have been raised by workmen present at the place of the work. There is no whisper about this aspect in the evidence of
PW1. It is not the case that there are no other persons present at the place of work where PW1 was working on the electric middle pole. Has already pointed out Konda Sagar, Mangali Ramesh,
Rupesh, Santhosh, D1 and 2 were all present along with PW1 while he was working on electric pole as per the evidence of
PW1 in the cross examination by D1 and D2. D1 also spoken about the presence of the above said persons at the work spot where PW1 was working on the middle pole.
36.It is signifcant to note that according to DW2 the cause of accident is due to induction of nearby LKV line crossing (Express
Line). When the Question was put to PW1 in the cross examination with regard to existence of express line, he pleaded ignorance. He denied the suggestion put to him that express lines touched accidentally with the lines of erecting lines due to which heat was produced and electric shock occurred. The allegations of negligence and recklessness on the part of D1 and
D2 appears to be without any basis and ill founded. It cannot be
Page Nos. 33 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
therefore, be concluded that there is negligence on the part of
D1 and D2 resulting severe injuries and permanent disability to
PW1. Though DW1 deposed in his evidence that PW1 is not the skilled worker but assuming that he is a skilled worker PW1 failed to take necessary precautions of wearing any scafoldings, light belts, shock proof helmets etc., D7 who is the employer of
PW1 also has not taken any steps are made arrangements through PW5 for safety measures while PW1 was working on the pole. In the view of the above, Plaintif failed to prove that PW1 sufered accident on 12.03.2016 while working on electric pole due to rash and negligent act of D1 and D2. Accordingly the point is answered against the Plaintif.
37.It is also clear from the evidence of D1 and D2 that the incident took place due to induction at the 11KV express line.
Therefore, Electricity Department represented by D3 to D6 are responsible for the electric shock sufered by PW1. The Plaintif sustained burn injuries all over his body, as a result, his struggles for existence in the event of amputations he cannot survive without the support of the attendant till-now. Therefore, the negligence is proved against the Defendants No. 3 to 7, but not on the defendant No.1, 2. with the evidence of DW.1 and
Page Nos. 34 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
DW2, it is reiterated as per DW1 that on the date of incident, while plaintif was attending the work at fourth pole, the incident occurred and as per DW2 that the incident took place while installing of third pole. It is evident from both DW1 and DW2 that they were on duty as on the date of alleged accident, but they deposed distinctly showing that their negligence is obvious on the part of the accident. Further, both DW1 and DW2 admitted that the incident took place due to electric shock of induction. Therefore, it is the statutory duty casted upon defendants 3 to 6 not to pass any electric current during the electric work is going on anywhere else on the day of accident and the Line Clearance is clear, but, they failed to state any valid reason with regard to electric shock happened, as a result, the plaintif sustained burn injuries all over his body, as a result, his struggles for existence in the event of amputations and he cannot survive without the support of the attendant till-now.
Therefore, the negligence is proved against the defendants 3 to 7, but, not on the plaintif defendant No.1, 2. Accordingly the point is answered against the defendants 3 to 7 and in favour of the plaintif.
Page Nos. 35 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the plaintif is entitled to compensation from defendants 1 to 7, as prayed forf
38.In view of fndings in issue No.1, it is already held that the negligence is proved on the part of the defendants 3 to 7, but, not on the part of the defendant No.1 and 2. Therefore, the plaintif is entitled to compensation from the defendants 3 to 7 only. In order to prove the same, the evidence of PW1 to PW6, coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A14, it is clearly established that PW1 sustained burn injuries due to electric shock, as on the date of alleged accident as shown in Ex.A1,2,3 and 4 clearly states that due to burn injuries through electric schlock, plaintif sustained burn injuries, he was shifted to various hospitals in Ambulance with help of workers and others who were present there-at, as stated supra, in terms of treatment and it was witnessed by
PW5, as stated supra. It also speaks that prior to the accident,
PW1 was hale and healthy and he worked as skilled labour under defendant No.7 and he was paid Rs.15,000/- per month, as shown in Ex.A.5 and further speaks that due to burn injuries, plaintif incurred heavy loss and he is unable to do anything else. The medical evidence also shows as per PW.2 to PW4 and
PW6 that the patient was admitted in their respective hospitals
Page Nos. 36 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
with a history of burning injuries sustained to him in electric shock due to the negligence of defendants 3 to 7 and that he was amputated and he is required a regular attendant to do any activity from the very beginning to till now. According to PW2, the plaintif is required life time attendant to helping in daily activities of living the patient/plaintif is required attendant throughout his stay in the hospital. Ex.A.8 – discharge summary book issued by their hospital and Ex.A.3-medical certifcate also issued.According to PW3, he states as per his chief-examination that PW1 came to their hospital with electrical burn injuries and accordingly, their hospital issued Ex.A.9 to Ex.A.11.PW4 states that the patient is required one attendant for his day-to-day activities throughout his life time and also he had colostomy i.e., he did not pass his stools via rectum and anus and he passes his tools via large intestine (colostomy). Ex.A.6 is the disability certifcate issued by the District Medical Board, Peddapally, and the signature on it is identifed by him and also other members of the Medical Board Signatures. According to PW6, Ex.A7- discharge summary along with lab reports were issued by their hospital. The treatment was under cash treatment and
Arogyasree Scheme is not available in their hospital. In their
Page Nos. 37 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
hospital, the expenditure was near about 10,00,000/-. A perusal of Ex.A.12, bunch of cash bills of 24 showing that the plaintif got treated and incurred huge amount for this treatment.
Ex.A.14, it clearly shows that there are cut of injuries, as discussed above through the medical evidence that they have had treated the plaintif in their respective hospitals, after his admission as in-patient, the specifc period has already been discussed above. The plaintif has produced adequate medical documents before the court to show the recurring needs for testing, treatment and further hospitalization for which, considerable expenses were incurred even after the hospitalization from 12.03.2016 to 27.09.2016 in Life Line
Hospital, Karimnagar, Yashoda Hospital Hyderabad and Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad respectively. The medical documents shows that the plaintif incurred Rs.8,04,969/- (Ex.A.10) computing all the bills fled pertaining to the treatment of PW1 in
Yashoda Superspeciality Hospital and Rs.31,925/- of Lakshmi
Medicals showing expenses of the plaintif and also including
Apollo Reach Bill of Rs.1,02.735/-. The total of expenses the above is Rs.9,39,629/- (Rupees nine Lakhs thirty nine thousand six hundred and twenty nine only) including other medical bills,
Page Nos. 38 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
rounded of Rs.10,00,000/-. Due to burn injuries, the plaintif became permanently disabled person and in that regard recurring medical treatment is inevitable and bearing in mind the additional expenses already incurred, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to enhance the future medical expenses to the plaintif. It is also considered that the permanent disability, as shown in Ex.A6, as certifed by the doctors stands at 99%, the same by no means, adequately refects the travails the disabled will have to face all his life and he is young and his youthful dreams and future hopes were snufed out by the serious accident and his condition has certainly impacted his family members, their resources and strength are bound to be stressed by the need to provide full time care to the plaintif. It is constantly relied on the disabled for stimulation and support is destined to cause emotional, physical and fnancial fatigue for all of stakeholders. On seeing the criticality of the permanent disability of the plaintif day-to-day, it is rounded of 100%, as the plaintif is struggling for life and death with his sufering from excreta releasing on the sachet. It is also seen that the plaintif is a bachelor and there is no possibility to marry anyone in future and he is unable to do anything without any support
Page Nos. 39 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
and he is required a person to take care of his throughout his life and he is struggling for life with his amputations. On the other hand, it is also clear picture with the evidence of DW.1 and DW2, it is reiterated as per DW1 that on the date of incident, while plaintif was attending the work at fourth pole, the incident occurred and as per DW2 that the incident took place while installing of third pole. It is evident from both DW1 and DW2 that they were on duty as on the date of alleged accident, but they deposed distinctly showing that their negligence is obvious on the part of the accident. There is no any other record to prove that the defendant No.1 and 2 is solely held responsible in causing the electric shock occurred in the accident. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the defendants 3 to 7 as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the plaintif. The defendants 3 to 7 also clearly elucidated with regard to Ex.B.1 – Contract Agreement in between Contractor M/ s Chaitanya Enterprises, Warangal and Employer, the Chief
General Manager, TSNPDCL, Warangal vide Agreement
No.36/2014-15, dated 09.03.2015. The accident occurred on 12.03.2016. It also apparently established that at the time of
Page Nos. 40 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
accident, defendants 3 to 7, D7 did not take any care and caution in curbing the electric shock, as they were deployed on the instructions of the defendants 3 to 6, as the defendants 1 and 2 were working under the control of defendants 3 to 6, and at the time of accident, the defendant No.7 was present. But he did not take any precautionary measures at the time of accident, who deployed their employees/defendants 1 and 2 and in their presence the alleged accident happened, as their duty is preventing passing current during doing work, in the midst, it is proved that the plaintif sustained burn injuries, on their negligence is proved, therefore, the case against the defendant
No.7 is hereby also proved, on the above grounds as stated supra. Hence, the defendants 3 to 7 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the plaintif. Accordingly the issue is answered.
39.The learned counsel for plaintif and the learned counsel for defendants fled their written arguments before this court and on perusal of the above; it holds that the plaintif is entitled to claim compensation for the alleged electric shock, as the employer is liable even if there is considered to be negligence on the part of the plaintif, as per the principle of master–servant
Page Nos. 41 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
delegation of duties. If a servant negligently delegates his authority and allows it to be performed by another person(s), the master will be liable for such negligence of the servant. If a servant negligently delegates his authority and allows it to be performed by another person(s), the master will be liable for such negligence of the servant.
40.The learned counsel for the plaintif relied on the following judgments:
1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, reported in 2019 ACJ 559, CA No.11495 of 2018, decided on 31.11.2018, between Ramla and Others V. National Insurance Company Limited and Others.
2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, reported in 2020 ACJ 1042, CA No.735 of 2020, decided on 05.02.2020, between Kajal V. Jagdish Chand and Others.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, SLP (C) No.25590 of 2014 with others; decided on 31.10.2017, between National Insurance Comapny Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Others.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, CA No.3483 of 2008 arising out of SLP (C) No.8648 of 2017; decided on 15.04.2009, between Sarla Verma and Others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, reported in 2016 ACJ 937 RFA No.421 of 2014, decided on 22.01.2015 between Kerala Electricity Board and Another V. Thomas and Others.
Page Nos. 42 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
6. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (DB) Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Vs. Shail Kumari And Others.
The learned counsel for the plaintif relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, reported
in 2016 ACJ 937 in RFA No.421 of 2014, decided on
22.01.2015, between the Kerala State Electricity Board
and Another V. Thomas and Others, wherein it was observed that:
(8).In Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board V. Shail Kumari, 2002 ACJ 526 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even while the authority responsible for the supply of electric energy takes all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy, they are liable under law of torts to compensate for the injuries sufered by other persons, irrespective of any negligence. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court reads thus:
“(7)It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electricity energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it, the primary liability to compensate the sufer is that of the supplier of the electricity energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension, the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road, the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities managing such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
Page Nos. 43 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
(8) Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury sufered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the Managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as ‘strict liability.’
The learned counsel for the plaintif also relies on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (DB), between Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari And Others, decided on 11.01.2002. It observed that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality is statutorily conferred on the Electricity Board.
41.Therefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and upon facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be relied upon the above decisions, the defendants 3 to 7 are liable to pay compensation to the plaintif.
The learned counsel for the plaintif fled a precedence of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in (2015) SCCR 233,
Civil Appeal Nos.348-349 of 2015, between Neeta (Smt.) W/o
Kallappa Kadolkar and Others Etc. Versus The Divisional
Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the fxation of monthly salary of the injured, it would be just and proper for this court to assess the monthly
Page Nos. 44 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
income at Rs.12,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency.
42.In view of the above decision, considering him/plaintif is a skilled labour in the above work done by him, the present standard of living, devaluation of the rupee, price index, the infation, loss of marital alliance throughout his life, taking care of his old aged mother, (father is no more) and sister (spinster) and entire family burdens have been shifting on his shoulder, to that efect, he is mentally fatigued, and considering his monthly income of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand only), as mentioned hereunder:
43.The injured was aged about 20 years (between 18-25 years), at the time of alleged electric shock and he is a skilled worker and as per Ex.A.5, he is paid Rs.15,000/- per month.
While assessing loss of earning capacity, the Court takes the income of the injured is Rs.11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand only) per month, out of the monthly income as shown in Ex.A.5/salary certifcate, and added 40% towards future prospects, at the time of alleged accident, the age of the plaintif is 20 years, as shown in Ex.A.2. Therefore, a multiplier
Page Nos. 45 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
of 18 was applied. The physical disability was assessed to be 100%, by the Court.
The learned counsel for the plaintif relies on a judgment of
Hon’ble Suprme Court of India at New Delhi, reported in 2020
ACJ 1042, vide CA No.735 of 2020, decided on 05.02.2020, between Kajal V. Jagdish Chand and Others, the Hon’ble Apex
Court observed that the quantum of compensation in various heads including for loss of wages and expenses for stay in hospital, etc. It also observed for loss of attendant charges by abiding by the principle of future prospects.
44.Considering the above decision, considering the present case on hand, the compensation due to electric shock, due to that the plaintif’s body became de-shaped on the amputated parts and he is unable to do his routine work without any support and it is not assimilated in terms of assessment of any compensation, as stated above, has to be fxed basing on the gravity of nature of case or injury and the circumstances, as stated in the above discussion, it holds that it is just, proper, cogent and reasonable for adjudication of the case. It is also applicable to the attendants by computing the same method applied for the permanent disability. The minimum monthly charges for the attendant to the plaintif throughout his life is
Page Nos. 46 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
fxed at Rs.5,000/- per month, as already fxed in the above decision cited.
45.The chart below would indicate the compensation/damage quantifed by the Court, under diferent hears:
Sl.HeadAmount
No. CompensationforRs.11,000 (monthly salary) permanent disability (100%)+ Rs.4,400/- (40% future prospects) = 15,400 x 12 (Months) x 18 (Multiplier) = Rs.33,26,400/- 1Attendance chargesRs.5,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs.5,000/- pm Rs.10,80,000/- 2Expense for transportationRs.30,000/- 3Extra-nourishmentRs.30,000/- 4Loss of Marriage prospectsRs.2,00,000/- 5Expensesfor treatmentRs.10,00,000/- (medical expenses) 6Attendance charges at theRs.98,500/- time of hospitalization (197 days x Rs.500), as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court 7Compensation for pain andRs.2,00,000/- sufering 8Loss for loss of amenitiesRs.1,00,000/- 9Future medical expensesRs.1,00,000/-
TotalRs.61,64,900/- Rounded of Rs.61,65,000/-
Page Nos. 47 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
ISSUE NO.3:
46.In the result, this suit is decreed, with costs, in part against defendants 3 to 7, granting compensation/damage of
Rs.61,65,000/- (Rupees sixty one Lakhs and sixty fve thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The defendants 3 to 7 are jointly and severally directed to pay the said amount within ONE MONTH from today.
47.Out of the said compensation/damage amount, the plaintif can be granted compensation amount of Rs.61,65,000/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs and sixty fve thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest.
48.On deposit of the said amount, the plaintif can be permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.41,65,000/- (Rupees forty one lakh and sixty fve thousand only) granted with proportionate costs and interest and the remaining amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) can be deposited by way of Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of
ONE YEAR and thereafter he shall be permitted to withdraw his respective amount with proportionate costs and interest. The
Page Nos. 48 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
defendants3 to 7are directed to pay the compensation/damage to the plaintif.
49.The suit against the defendant No.1 and 2 are hereby dismissed.
50.Advocate fee is fxed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of November, 2023.
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:FOR THE DEFENDANTS: P.W.1: Kalva ThirupathiD.W.1: Thoutu Srinivas P.W.2: Dr A.Subodu KumarD.W.2: Fasih Ahmed P.W.3: Dr Shashikanth Maddu P.W.4: Dr Guduri Ravinder P.W.5: Shrungarapu Bhaskar P.W.6: Dr Ch.Pradeep Kumar
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A.1:Certifed copy of First Information Report along with complaint in Cr.No.54 of 2016 of Manakondur Police Station.
Ex.A.2:Certifed copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.A.3:Certifed copy of Medical Certifcate issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.
Page Nos. 49 Of 49 OS No. 21 of 2019
Ex.A.4:Legal Notice issued by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 to 7 to grant compensation. Ex.A.5:Salary Certifcate issued by M/s Chaitanya Enterprises, R/ by Akula Nagaraju Contractor. Ex.A.6:Disability Certifcate issued by Medical Board, Government Hospital, Peddapalli. Ex.A.7:Discharge Summary along with Lab reports issued by Life Line Multi Special Hospital, Karimnagar. Ex.A.8:Discharge Summary book issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. (Subject to Objection). Ex.A.9:Discharge Summary issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A.10:Discharge bill for Rs.8,04,969/- issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A.11:A bunch of Diagnostic bills (21) in number issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A.12:A bunch of Cash bills (24) in number issued by Laxmi Medicals, Hyderabad and Apollo Reach Hospital, Karimnagar. Ex.A.13:Photographs of the Petitioner (3) in number along with C.D
Ex.A.14:Memorandum of Marks for 7th Class of the petitioner.
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: Contract Agreement in between Contractor M/s.Chaitanya Enterprises, Warangal and Employer the Chief General Manager, TSNPDCL, Warangal vide Agreement No.36/2014- 15, dated 09.03.2015.
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR