Page 1 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:
AT NALGONDA
Present: P. Purushotham Rao, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda
Tuesday, on this 31st day of March, 2026
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 283 of 2016
BETWEEN:
1. Varikuppala Durgamma W/o Late Srinu, aged: 23 years,
2. Varikuppala Laxmamma W/o Iddaiah, aged: 50 years,
3. Varikuppala Iddaiah S/o Yellaiah, aged: 55 years,
All are R/o Kanchanapally village of Nalgonda Mandal and District.
… Plaintiffs
And
1. Boddupally Anthaiah S/o Bala Narsimha, aged: 40 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Kanchanpally village of Nalgonda Mandal and District.
2. The Southern Power Distribution Company R/by its Superintendent Operation Circle, Nalgonda Town and District.
3. The Chairman, TSSPDCL, Vidyuth Soudha, Kairathabad, Hyderabad.
… Defendants
The suit coming before me for disposal in the presence of Sri M. Balaiah, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, and of Sri N. Prasanna Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 and of Sri A. Suresh Babu, Learned Counsel for the Defendants No.2 and 3; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
Page 2 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This is a suit filed for awarding compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of death of the deceased till realization.
2. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are parents of the deceased Srinu. The deceased Varikuppala Srinu, aged 26 years is a labourer by profession. He is only earning member in the family. Plaintiffs are totally depended upon the earnings of the deceased. He has been maintaining the entire family with his earnings.
The deceased Srinu used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by doing labour work and contribute the same for the maintenance of welfare of the family. On 05.08.2015, defendant No.1 engaged the deceased Srinu for the purpose of setting electrical motor and laying pipe lines in the bore well of defendant No.1. While he was digging the trench for laying the pipes at about 3.30 p.m., the spade touched to the live current wire which is laid through the earth. As a result, the deceased Srinu sustained electric shock and fell down on the ground. He was shifted to
Government Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment, but he lost his breath on the way.
Page 3 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 2.1. Defendant No.2 is negligent in providing power connection to defendant No.1 in the ground. If the electric connection is given openly, the unfortunate incident would not happen. Defendant No.1 is well aware that electric wire is passing underneath the earth which is passing to the electrical motor of defendant No.1 for connection.
Defendant No.1 intentionally not disclosed the said fact to the deceased while digging trench. Defendant No.1 would have been at least alerted the deceased so as to avoid electric shock. Defendant No.1 would have taken precautionary measures, but acted negligently and caused death of the deceased Srinu.
2.2. Due to untimely death of deceased, plaintiffs were in deep shock and suffered lot of mental agony. By the time of death, Srinu was aged only 26 years. He was hale and healthy person.
2.3. Plaintiff No.1 lost her companion at her young age of just 23 years. Due to negligence of the defendant No.1 in not informing about live wire electric passing through underneath and allowing the deceased to do trench at the place where live electric wire is passing caused death of Srinu due to electric shock.
Page 4 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 2.4. Due to untimely death of deceased Srinu, plaintiff No.1 lost her husband and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 lost their only son, plaintiffs are entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from them.
2.5. Plaintiffs reported the matter before Police Station,
Nalgonda Rural who registered a case in Crime No.143 of 2015 under
Section 174 Cr.P.C. and took up investigation. The body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem examination.
2.6. Plaintiffs made several representations before the defendants to pay compensation for the death of the deceased, but defendant No.1 and defendants No.2, 3 and their officers did not give any response. Plaintiffs got issued legal notice through their advocate on 14.09.2015 and it was served on the defendants, but they failed to pay any compensation.
3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint specifically.
3.1. It is denied that plaintiffs are having own house and sufficient means to pay court fee and they have some gold ornaments which costs more than Rs.50,000/-. The old aged parents of the deceased getting pension from the Government of Telangana and hence, they got
Page 5 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG sufficient means to pay court fee. The plaint pleadings are set up only to evade court fee.
3.2. It is submitted that deceased Varikuppala Srinu, aged 26 years was a labouer by profession. His wife and parents are also able to do caste profession and they can maintain their lives by earning for their livelihood. They are getting pension and rice from Government of
Telangana.
3.3. It is denied that deceased was engaged by defendant No.1 for the purpose of setting of electrical motor as he was unknown to the electrical work and he was engaged to close trenches at the time of electric shock and his negligence caused for the same. There is no negligence on the part of defendant No.1. On the death of deceased, defendant No.1 confirmed the same before the village elders and the plaintiffs agreed that there is no negligence on the part of defendant
No.1 and the same was written on paper before village elders on 18.08.2015. Hence, suit against defendant No.1 is liable to be dismissed.
3.4. Defendant No.1 is not known about negligence of defendant
No.2 and there is no negligence of defendant No.1 as the electrical wire is openly shown to all and the same was knowingly touched by
Page 6 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG deceased. It was absolute fault on the deceased. Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed against defendant No.1.
3.5. It is quite natural for every human being and deep shock, mental agony when a young person of the family dies. The present incident occurred due to negligence and irresponsible behaviour of the deceased. Defendant No.1 is not desire to happen any incident.
Plaintiffs agreed in writing before the village elders that there is no negligence on the part of defendant No.1.
3.6. It is admitted that Police, Nalgonda Rural filed a criminal case in Crime No.143/2015 and subjected the dead body to post mortem examination.
3.7. It is denied that plaintiffs made several representations to defendant No.1 to pay compensation. Defendant No.1 cannot be made liable for the same as he gave the work to the deceased person for his livelihood and to earn money, but defendant No.1 is wrongly impleaded in the present suit though he was not negligent. The wife and parents of the deceased agreed in writing not to make any dispute against defendant No.1. Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed.
Page 7 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 3.8. It is denied that plaintiffs are not having sufficient means to pay court fee as deceased earned movables, house hold articles and motorcycle. Parents of the deceased are getting old age pension and they are not depended upon the deceased. The defendant No.1 in the form of additional grounds also pleaded that there are no merits in the suit and intentionally filed the present suit violating the written agreement not to file any case against him.
3.9. It is submitted that on receipt of legal notice from the plaintiffs on 14.09.2015 demanding compensation, defendant No.1 approached plaintiffs and placed the matter before village elders wherein plaintiffs agreed not claim any compensation. Defendant No.1 is only nominal party. Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and the brief averments are:
4.1. The plaintiffs did not approach the court with clean hands and suit is nothing but abuse of process of law.
4.2. This defendant is not aware that deceased was aged 26 years. They are not aware that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family of plaintiffs. Defendant
Page 8 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG
No.2 is not aware that the deceased is only earning member of the family and plaintiffs are totally depended on his earnings.
4.3. Defendant No.2 submitted that the plaintiffs have taken two versions. It is not stated which one of the version is correct. As per the pleadings on 05.08.2015, defendant No.1 engaged deceased Varikuppala
Srinu for setting electric motor to the bore well and also laying pipe lines in the bore well. While the deceased was digging the trench for laying pipe lines, at about 3.30 p.m., the spade touched the live current wire which was passing through the earth, resulting the deceased sustained electric shock and fell down on the ground. He was shifted to
Government Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment, but on the way he died.
The second version given to police is that while the deceased was filling the trench with spade, it touched the live current wire which was passing through the earth and got electric shock and died on the way while shifting to hospital.
4.4. It is false to allege that defendant No.2 is negligent in providing power connection to defendant No.1 and further alleged that the power connection given is improper if it is given properly, the unfortunate incident could not have taken place.
Page 9 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 4.5. It is submitted by defendant No.2 that as per the department rules and procedure of TSSPDCL extending service line (wire) up to the switch board/box where cut outs, main switch are fixed. The consumer has to extend power cable to the bore motor thereafter which is inside the bore (underground). It is also a fact that the consumer himself has to take all precautions to prevent electric shock from the power line (cable wire) extended from main switch to his motor inside the bore well.
4.6. Defendant No.1 is well aware that live electric wire is passing through the earth to the motor, he should have informed the same to the deceased before taking the task, but defendant No.1 did not inform the same to the deceased, as such, defendant No.1 was negligent and intentionally not disclose the fact to the deceased who was digging/filling the trench with his spade. Defendant No.1 alone is responsible for causing electric shock to the deceased and his death.
There is no negligence on the part of the department or its employees.
4.7. It is further pleaded by plaintiffs that defendant No.1 intentionally not disclosed the said fact to the deceased while digging the trench, at least he would have alerted the deceased to take precautionary measures, but due to negligent act of defendant No.1, it
Page 10 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG cost the life of deceased Srinu. The above pleadings of the plaintiffs itself speaks that there is no negligence on the part of department.
4.8. Defendant No.2 is not admitting and denied that plaintiffs are sole legal heirs to the deceased to claim compensation against this department. There is no calculation how such huge amounts are sought for compensation without any specific calculation. Defendant No.2 is unaware about age, income and health condition of deceased Srinu and they are put to strict proof of the same.
4.9. Defendant No.2 came to know that Police, Nalgonda Rural registered a case under suspicious death under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
4.10. It is denied that plaintiffs made several representations to these defendants requesting for payment of compensation. It is admitted that legal notice dated 14.09.2015 was issued, but it was not served on proper address. The notice on defendant No.3 is not served on proper address. If the notice are served on proper address, suitable reply would have been given to the plaintiffs.
4.11. It is denied that defendants No.2 and 3 are totally negligent in giving connection to the current motor underneath the earth. It is the negligence of defendant No.1 alone who failed to disclose to the
Page 11 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG deceased that live electric wire is passing to the earth. Defendants No.2 and 3 are not liable to pay any compensation as they are not negligent.
5. Basing on the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties, my learned predecessor on 27.07.2021 had framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages of
Rs.10,00,000/- from the defendants with future interest as claimed?
2.To what relief?
6. As the issues are not properly framed, as such, at the time of dictating the judgment, this court had recast the issues by exercising its powers under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC. The recast issues are as follows:-
1.Whether the deceased Varikuppala Srinu died due to electrocution?
2.Whether there was any negligence on the part of the defendants for the death of the deceased?
3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages from the defendants as prayed for?
4.To what relief?
Page 12 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG
7. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 got herself examined as PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A5 as documentary evidence. Plaintiff No.2 got herself examined as PW2 and one village elder is examined as PW3. On behalf of the defendants No.2 and 3, the Assistant Divisional Engineer of TSSPDCL and one lineman are examined as DWs.1 and 2 and no documents were exhibited.
Defendant No.1 did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary evidence.
8. Ex.A1 is the FIR No.143/2015 of Police Station, Nalgonda
Rural duly issued by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nalgonda Rural after attesting the same, Ex.A2 is the Postmortem examination report duly issued by SHO, Nalgonda Rural after attesting the same, Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 14.09.2015, Ex.A4 is the post receipts (3 nos.) dated 14.09.2015 and Ex.A5 is the postal served acknowledgment cards (2 nos.) on defendant No.2.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for defendants No.2 and 3 filed their written arguments which have become part and parcel of the record.
Page 13 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG
10. Issues No.1 to 3:
1. Whether the deceased Varikuppala Srinu died due to electrocution?
2.Whether there was any negligence on the part of the defendants for the death of the deceased?
3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages from the defendants as prayed for?
10.1. It is argued by the learned counsel for the defendants Nos.2 and 3 that it is the burden on the plaintiff to prove the negligence.
Defendants are not duty bound to establish that they are not negligent.
10.2. In view of the above arguments, it is appropriate to look into some decision of Hon’ble Courts. The Hon’ble Erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh between Mothukuri Bheemavva and Ors. v. Andhra
Pradesh State Electricity Board, Hyderabad and Ors., 1997 (3) APLJ 298
= 1997 (6) ALD 217= 1998 (1) ALT 67 held that the burden of proof in a case of electrocution rests on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence on its part but not on the plaintiff to prove negligence. The
Hon’ble High Court after surveying the precedents held that in torts
liability to pay damages for negligence resulting in the death of a person due to electrocution by live electric wire lies on the defendant and the burden of proof that there was no negligence on the part of the
Page 14 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG defendant lies on the defendant to establish that there was no negligence on their part.
10.3. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kamalakshy Amma.,
AIR 1987 Ker 253 , a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that where it is proved that a pedestrian was electrocuted from a live wire hanging down from an electric post, there is a presumption of fact that there was lack of proper care on the part of those in the management or control of the power supply system at the particular place. It was held that the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies to such a case and the onus of proof shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant. It was further held that Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act gives a wide discretion to the court to draw presumptions of fact. In that case the Hon’ble Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court referred to the following observations made in the leading case of Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks
Co., (1865) 3 H&C 596:
“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”.
Page 15 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 10.4. In Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka.,(1980) 1 SCC 30 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had discussed the applicability of the
maxim res ipsa loquitur in civil as also in criminal cases in the light of the provisions of the Evidence Act. In that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
“The rule of res ipsa loquitur, in reality, belongs to the law of
Torts where negligence is in issue. But the peculiar circumstances constituting the event or accident, in a particular case, may themselves proclaim in concordant, clear and unambiguous voices the negligence of somebody as the cause of the event or accident. It is to such cases that the maxim res ipsa loquitur may apply, if the cause of the accident is unknown and no reasonable explanation as to the cause is coming forth from the defendant. To emphasise the point, it may be reiterated that in such cases, the event or accident must be of a kind which does not happen in the ordinary course of things if those who have the management and control use due care. Further the event which caused the accident must be within the defendant's control. The reason for this second requirement is that where the defendant has control of the thing which caused the injury, he is in a better position than the plaintiff to explain how the accident occurred.” 10.5. Further the doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English
Common Law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of
Page 16 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330). Blackburn J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision:
“The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril; and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” 10.6. The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many subsequent decision in England. The said principle gained approval in India as well. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Ors., AIR 2002
SC 551 = (2002) 2 SCC 162 held that the electricity board is liable to pay
compensation irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the electricity board when a person died due to contact with live electric wire lying on the road.
10.7. By relying on the said Judgment the Hon’ble High court for the state of Telangana between The Chairman, APSEB v. Smt. Razia
Begum., 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3180 held that strict liability is cast on the electricity board and compensation is to be awarded to the kin of the deceased irrespective of the negligence by electricity department.
Page 17 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 10.8. Thus, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Courts in the above discussed cases the burden of proof in cases of this nature rests on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence on its part but not on the plaintiffs to prove negligence.
10.9. It is the defence of defendants No.2 and 3 that as per plaint is concerned on 05.08.2015, defendant No.1 engaged deceased
Varikuppala Srinu for setting electric motor to the bore well and to lay pipe line in the bore well. While digging trench for laying pipe line at about 3.30 p.m., the spade of deceased Varikuppala Srinu touched the live electric wire passing through the earth, caused electric shock and he died.
10.10. Defendants No.2 and 3 submitted as per department rules, the procedure of TSSPDCL, extend service line (wire) up to the switch boar/box where cut outs, main switch are fixed. It is the consumer who extend power cable to the bore cable there onwards to the bore motor which is inside bore underground. It is for the consumer i.e., defendant
No.1 herein to take all precautionary measures to prevent electric shock from the power line (cable wire). Defendant No.1 is well aware that live electric wire is passing through the earth to the motor. He should have
Page 18 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG informed to deceased before the work. Defendant No.1 did not inform to the deceased due to his negligence it caused electric shock to the deceased and subsequent death. Defendant No.1 was negligent and intentionally not disclosed the fact to the deceased Varikuppala Srinu as to the existence of live electric wire underground. There is no negligence on the part of electricity department i.e., defendants No.2 and 3.
10.11. Defendant No.1 filed written statement. He denied that deceased was engaged for the purpose of setting electric motor as he was unknown to the electric work. He stated that he was engaged to close trenches and his negligence caused electric shock and there is no negligence on the part of defendant No.1. He further pleaded that plaintiffs agreed that there is no negligence on the part of defendant
No.1 and it is agreed by them in written document before the village elders on 18.08.2015.
10.12. It is further pleaded that defendant No.1 is not known about negligence of defendant No.2. So, defendant No.1 is not contributing negligence on the part of defendant No.2. It is his pleading that electric wire is openly visible and the same was unknowingly touched by the deceased and it is fault of the deceased.
Page 19 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 10.13. From the pleadings of the defendant No.1 it is crystal clear that the deceased was engaged to close trenches on the day of incident.
Defendant No.1 did not throw blame on defendant No.2 and even did not state that it is happened due to negligence of defendant No.2 but simply stated that he does not know about the negligence of defendant
No.2.
10.14. Defendant No.1 did not come to witness box to explain that electric connection to the bore well is open but not through underground and that he informed to deceased about live electric wire under the ground and cautioned him and even then, deceased did not oblige his caution. Defendant No.1 except filing written statement did not come to witness box. Pleadings are only statement of facts, but they did not state any evidence.
10.15. Defendants No.2 and 3 examined DWs.1 and 2 to establish that there is no negligence on their part. DW1 deposed in his evidence as well as pleadings that electric wire which was passing through the earth was fixed by defendant No.1 only from the electric pole to the agriculture bore, but not by the employee of defendants No.2 and 3. It is due to sheer negligence on the part of defendant No.1 only. Fixing of electrical service cable from the electric pole to electric bore well motor is
Page 20 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG the responsibility of the consumer only, but not of defendants No.2 and
3. Defendant No.1 is only liable for the negligence and for compensation. Defendant No.1’s counsel did not cross-examine DW1, but plaintiffs’ counsel only cross-examined. In such cross-examination,
DW1 has deposed that they gave authorized agricultural electric connection to defendant No.1 and gave connection till starter box/fuse box. They gave connection from the pole to starter box and that it is responsibility of the consumer i.e., defendant No.1 from starter box till bore well. As Defendant No.1 did not cross-examine DW1, the pleadings of defendants No.2 and 3 that defendant No.1 is negligent remained proved. So also on the ground that defendant No.1 remained silent without producing any evidence that he is not negligent. It is not the case of defendant No.1 in his pleadings that the incident happened due to the negligence of defendants No.2 and 3.
10.16. DW2 is lineman of defendants No.2 and 3 Department. He deposed that he is Assistant Lineman during the period 2013 to 2016.
He deposed that electric wire which was passing underneath earth was closed by defendant No.1 only from the electric pole to his agricultural bore, but not by defendants Nos.2 and 3.
Page 21 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 10.17. Defendant No.1 is solely responsible as he is negligent in getting the electric wire underground and not informing to the labourer i.e., deceased by engaging him to dig trench where the live electric wire is passing. His department connects them service cable from electric pole to the starter, but it is the defendant No.1 who is consumer responsible for the drawing wire from starter to the bore well. Defendant No.2 is also not cross-examined by defendant No.1’s counsel. DW1 denied suggestion that the department did not give proper connection to the starter box and that due to their negligence incident had taken place. He denied the suggestion that they gave connection by digging trench.
10.18. PW1 deposed reiterating the pleadings of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination by defendants No.2 and 3 it is elicited that when her husband was attending work near the well digging trench the live electric wire in the ground came into contact with the spade and her husband received electric shock and thereafter died. She further admitted that a panchayat was held in the village after the death of her husband holding defendant No.1 responsible for the death of her husband.
10.19. Surprisingly, defendant No.1 adopted cross-examination of
PW1 by defendant Nos.2 and 3’s counsel. Even defendant No.1 did not
Page 22 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG make any effort to cross-examine PW1 by independently cross- examining the witnesses to prove that he is not responsible for the death of the deceased Varikuppala Srinu. When in the cross-examination of her by defendants No.2 and 3’s counsel it is elicited that defendant No.1 is only responsible for the death of her husband. Defendant No.1’s counsel and defendant No.1 is very much knowledge that PW1 has categorically deposed that in the cross-examination that defendant No.1 is responsible and defendant No.1 adopted such cross-examination which means that he is admitting such fact.
10.20. PW2 who is plaintiff No.2 reiterated the pleadings in her examination in chief. In her cross-examination, she admitted that while digging trench her son received electric shock as electrical wire laid by defendant No.1 underneath the ground was cut. She further admitted that defendant No.1 did not cautioned her son or informed that there is live electric cable underneath ground laid by defendant No.1 and possibility of electric shock while digging trench. She admitted that her son died due to electric shock due to negligence on the part of defendant
No.1. Defendant No.1’s counsel did not cross-examine the witness.
Hence, the elicitations made against defendant No.1 remained proved.
Page 23 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 10.21. PW3 is independent witness. He too discloses the pleadings in his examination in chief. In the cross-examination of defendants No.2 and defendant No.3’s counsel. PW3 admitted that defendant No.1 was aware that electric wire was passing underneath his land and intentionally did not disclose the said fact to the deceased while digging trench and did not alert the deceased and did not take proper precautional measures. He admitted that defendant No.1 had laid electric wire in the ground and he wanted to take the wire out from the ground and in that process the deceased sustained electric shock.
Defendant No.1’s counsel did not cross-examine PW3. Hence, whatever elicited in the cross-examination of PW3 that defendant No.1 did not inform about electric live wire and allowed deceased to dig trench and caused electric shock remained proved. From the testimony of DWs.1 and 2 and elicitation in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3, it is clearly proved that defendants No.2 and 3 are not negligent for the electric shock to the deceased and his death subsequently, but it is due to the negligence of defendant No.1 who engaged the deceased to dig trench without informing that live electric wire is passing underneath ground and caused spade touched live electric wire causing electrocution to the deceased. Admittedly, live electric wire was passing to the bore well from the starter point, but not from the pole to the starter point/fuse
Page 24 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG box. As department only lays or draws service connection from pole to starter box and it is the consumer/defendant No.1 to draw electric wire from the starter box to the bore motor, but defendant No.1 draw live electric wire under the grounds. It is nothing but gross negligence and did not inform to the workers i.e., deceased and allowed him to dig trench where live electric wire is passing. Hence, defendant No.1 is negligent and he is only responsible and negligence for the death of deceased, but not by defendants No.2 and 3.
10.22. Defendant No.1 in his written statement itself has clearly admitted that Varikuppala Srinu, aged 26 years was a labourer by profession. Defendant No.1 in his written statement further pleaded that there was no negligence on his part and it is confirmed by plaintiff
before the elders and it is reduced into writing. When deceased was not
engaged in the work of digging trench there is no necessity for defendant No.1 to reduce confirmation of his non negligence in writing.
So, it has to be construed that defendant No.1 engaged deceased to dig trench for laying pipe line to the bore well.
10.23. PWs.1 to 3 has clearly deposed that on 05.08.2015 defendant
No.1 engaged deceased Varikuppala Srinu for the purpose of setting electric motor and live pipe line in the bore well of defendant No.1. In
Page 25 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG the cross-examination of PW1 by defendants No.2 and 3 she categorically admitted that defendant No.1 engaged her husband
Varikuppala Srinu for laying electric motor and pipes near the agricultural well.
10.24. PW2 also deposed that on 05.08.2015 defendant No.1 engaged deceased Varikuppala Srinu for the purpose of setting electric motor and laying pipe line in the bore of defendant No.1. In the cross- examination of PW2 by defendants No.2 and 3’s counsel she has categorically admitted that his son used to do coolie work and he used to work for those who have engaged as per their convenience and he was daily wage coolie. Defendant No.1 and Boddupally Anthaiah took her son for work for laying bore pipes and other agricultural works.
10.25. PW3 who is independent witness also deposed that on 05.08.2015 defendant No.1 engaged Varikuppala Srinu for the purpose of setting electric motor and laying pipe line in the bore well of defendant
No.1. In the cross-examination of PW3 by defendants No.2 and 3, he admitted that defendant No.1 took the deceased Srinu on the alleged date of death for coolie work near the fields of defendant No.1. So, from the testimony of PWs.1 and 3 and their admission in the cross- examination of them by defendants No.2 and 3’s counsel, it is elicited
Page 26 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG that on the date of incident on 05.08.2015, defendant No.1 engaged
Varikuppala Srinu for laying pipe line by digging trench to the bore well of him.
10.26. Ex.A1 is the FIR in Cr.No.143/2015 of Police Station
Nalgonda Rural registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on the report made by father of the deceased Varikuppala Srinu also disclosing that on 05.08.2015 defendant No.1 engaged Varikuppala Srinu to lay bore motor and dig trench. So, it is clearly established that defendant No.1 engaged
Varikuppala Srinu to attend coolie work at his agriculture bore to lay pipe line by digging trench.
10.27. PW1 is the wife, PW2 is the mother and PW3 is independent witness. They testified that Varikuppala Srinu died of electric shock when the live electric wire contacted him when he used spade for digging trench at agriculture bore well of defendant No.1. Defendant
No.1 did not come to witness box to deny such fact. Ex.A1 FIR lodged by father of the deceased and Ex.A2 inquest also clearly speaks how the deceased Varikuppala Srinu died of electric shock. Ex.A3 legal notice issued to defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 and 3 also speaks that defendant No.1 engaged deceased Varikuppala Srinu to dig trench at his agriculture bore and due to negligence of defendant No.1 in not
Page 27 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG informing about live electric wire under the ground, it was came into contact to live electric wire and died. But, defendant No.1 or any other defendants did not issue any reply. Hence, it is established that
Varikuppala Srinu died of electric shock only, but not otherwise and he is engaged by defendant No.1 for the purpose of laying pipe line by digging trench for the bore well.
10.28. As per the pleading, plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiffs
No.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. There is no evidence at all that plaintiff No.1/PW1 is not wife and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are not parents of deceased Varikuppala Srinu. In Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A2 inquest report also the age of the deceased Srinu is mentioned as 26 years and he is son of plaintiff No.3/Iddaiah. PW1 deposed that she is wife. PW2 deposed that she is mother of the deceased and report is lodged by
Varikuppala Iddaiah, who is father of the deceased. Hence, in the absence of any contrary evidence that they are not wife and parents of the deceased, it is to be treated as they are wife and parents of deceased only. Upon the application of plaintiffs for legal aid, District Legal
Services Authority after thorough enquiry about their status issued legal aid and plaintiffs are permitted to file suit as indigent persons. Hence,
Page 28 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG plaintiff No.1 is wife and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are parents of the deceased Varikuppala Srinu only.
10.29. PW1 denied the suggestion that she is not wife of the deceased Varikuppala Srinu. Just because no certificate is produced from Grampanchayat, it cannot be said that she is not the wife of deceased. She has categorically stated that she is carrying 4th month pregnancy when her husband died and now her son aged about 7 years old on the date of her deposition.
10.30. PW1 deposed that deceased is her husband and by the time of his death, he was 26 years old and labourer by profession and that he is only earning member in the family. She along with PWs.2 and 3 are depended upon him. He used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month contributed the same for the family welfare and he died on 05.08.2015 due to negligence of defendant No.1 by electric shock. Her age is 23 years. PW2 being mother of the deceased also deposed that deceased was aged 26 years at the time of death and was a labourer by profession and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same for the family and they are depended upon his earnings. In her cross- examination by defendants No.2 and 3 she has categorically stated that
PW1 did not remarry after the death of her husband Varikuppala Srinu.
Page 29 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG
The deceased Varikuppala Srinu used to work as collie for those who have engaged as per their convenience and he was daily wage coolie and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. PW3 independent witness also deposed that he knows the deceased Varikuppala Srinu and he was aged about 26 years and labourer by profession and only earning member in the family. He used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. He admitted that defendant No.1 took Varikuppala Srinu for coolie work on the date of death in his fields. PWs.1 and 2 in their examination in chief also deposed that Varikuppala Srinu was engaged as labourer by defendant
No.1. Hence, it is elicited that deceased Varikuppala Srinu was a daily wage labourer aged about 26 years having wife, parents depended upon him and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
10.31. In the cross examination of Pws.1 and 2 nothing significant was elicited in order to impeach the credit of Pws.1 and 2. The oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiffs would establish that the accident was occurred due to the electrocution and the deceased died due to electric shock. In the present case, the defendant N0.1 failed to establish that the accident occurred was due to some cause other than negligence of the Defendant No.1.
Page 30 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 10.32. Therefore, in view of the discussion this court holds that, the death of deceased Varikuppala Srinu was due to the negligence of the defendant No.1 in not informing that a live electric wire passing under the ground and allowing him to dig trench which came into contact to the spade used by deceased resulted in the death of deceased and therefore the defendant No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs.
10.33. Now, coming to award the compensation, the plaintiffs have to prove the age, earnings of the deceased and the dependency on the deceased. As per Ex.A1/FIR and report, Ex.A2/Inquest report, and from the testimony of PW1 and 2 being wife and mother, the age of deceased was mentioned as 26 years. Therefore, considering the above material documents on record it can be safely held that the deceased was aged about 26 years as on the date of his death. Further, according to plaintiffs, the deceased was an labourer by profession and earning
Rs.10,000/- per month.
10.34. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from labour work . But, no material is produced by plaintiffs to prove that the deceased was earning
Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, this court feels that the deceased can be
Page 31 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG considered only as a daily wage coolie. In the absence of any evidence considering that an agriculture labourer would be earning Rs.300/- per day and that being the case the deceased could be earning Rs.300/- per day and considering the same this court is of the opinion that the deceased could be earning Rs.9,000/- per month which would come to
Rs.1,08,000/- per annum.
10.35. In assessing the quantum of compensation, Hon’ble
Erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh between Mothukuri
Bheemavva And Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board,
Hyderabad and Ors., 1997 (3) APLJ 298 = 1997 (6) ALD 217= 1998 (1)
ALT 67 observed that the principles adopted by the courts for the determination of compensation to be awarded in fatal accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, can also be adopted.
10.36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between Sarla Verma
and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another., ( 2009) 6 SCC
121 observed thus:
“Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to
Susamma Thomas(set out in Column 2 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra (Set out in
Column 3 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in Co. 4 of the table above); many
Page 32 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG follow the multiplier given in second column of the table in the
Second Schedule to MV Act(extracted in column 5 of the Table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the
Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the Table above). For example, if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per
Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in Column 2 of the Second
Schedule to M.V.Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistence. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under section 163-A of M.V.Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, Davies method is applicable”.
“We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 21 and 21 to 25), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M.17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years,
M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 10.37. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the multiplier '17' has to be taken for the reason that the deceased is aged 26 years at the time of accident.
Page 33 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 10.38. In the above said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme court held with regard to the deduction for personal and living expenses, that:
“Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, were of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3 rd ), where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (1/4 th ) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth (1/5 th ) where the number of the dependent family members exceed six.” 10.39. As per the above ratio, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted for the expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive. Since the deceased was 26 years at the time of his death and his income can be taken at
Rs.9,000/- per month. Out of the above said amount, 1/3rd has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive i.e. 3,000/- per month (Rs.9,000/- x 1/3 = 3,000/-). So, the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family is taken into consideration as Rs.6,000/- (Rs.9,000/- minus Rs.3,000/-) and annual contribution comes to
Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 12). If the annual earnings of the deceased is multiplied with ‘17’, the loss of contribution of the deceased comes to
Rs.12,24,000/- (Rs.72,000/- x multiplier ‘17). Thus, in all, the plaintiffs are
Page 34 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG entitled to Rs.12,24,000/-towards compensation for the death of the deceased due to negligence of defendant No.1 and that the defendant
No.1 is liable to pay the said amount. Issue No.1 to 4 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs accordingly.
11. Issue No.4: To what relief?
11.1. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against defendant No.1 awarding a compensation of Rs.12,24,000/- (Rupees
Twelve lakhs twenty four thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization. Though the plaintiffs have claimed Rs.10,00,000/- (Tupees Ten lakhs only) as compensation, nevertheless they are entitled for the compensation / damages to an extent of Rs.12,24,000/-. The suit against defendants No.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed.
11.2. The Defendant No.1 is directed to pay compensation of
Rs.12,24,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs twenty four thousand only) with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization to the Plaintiffs within three months from the date of the judgment.
Page 35 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG 11.3. Considering the relationship of the parties with the deceased and the settled principles of law,this court is of the view that the compensation amount is to be apportioned equitably among the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.1 being wife of the deceased is the primarily dependent and is entitled to a larger share. Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 being parents of the deceased are also dependents and are entitled to a reasonable share. Accordingly, out of the total compensation of
Rs.12,24,000/-, the same shall be apportioned as follows; 11.4. Plaintiff No.1 will get Rs.6,12,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs twelve thousand only) (50% share). Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 being mother and father are entitled to Rs.3,06,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs six thousand only) each (i.e., 25% share each).
11.5. Since the plaintiffs were permitted to sue as indigent persons, court fee payable shall be recovered from the decreetal amount as per Order XXXIII Rule 10 CPC and the same shall be treated as first charge on the compensation awarded.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31 st day of March, 2026.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NALGONDA.
Page 36 of 36
Judgment dt.31.03.2026 in OS No. 283 of 2016 of PRL. SCJ, NLG
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1: Varikuppala Durgamma (Plaintiff No.1)
PW2: Varikuppala Laxmamma (Plaintiff No.2)
PW3: Dandu Yellaiah (Villager elder)
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
No.2 and 3:
DW1: M. Venugopala Chary (Asst. Divisional Engineer, TSSPDCL)
DW2: Kanchanapally Nagendra Chary (Lineman in TSSPDCL)
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A1 is the FIR No.143/2015 of Police Station, Nalgonda Rural duly issued by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nalgonda Rural after attesting the same,
Ex.A2 is the Postmortem examination report duly issued by SHO, Nalgonda Rural after attesting the same,
Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 14.09.2015,
Ex.A4 is the post receipts (3 nos.) dated 14.09.2015
Ex.A5 is the postal served acknowledgment cards (2 nos.) on defendant No.2.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
No.2 and 3:
- Nil -
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NALGONDA.