Superintending Engineer (Electrical), KPTCL and Others vs Lakshmavva and Others

B. Veerappa, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2012 made in R.A. No. 14/2011 on the file of the I Fast Track Court, Koppal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 made in O.S. No. 90/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kushtagi, decreeing the suit in part awarding compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 jointly due to the death of her husband Balappa, on negligence of the defendants.

The 1st respondent who is wife of the deceased filed original suit which was numbered as Misc. Civil No. 3/2002 as pauperism suit. After contest, the said suit came to be allowed. Subsequently it was converted into O.S. No. 83/2005 by an order dated 20.10.2005 and subsequently, the same was transferred in view of the newly created Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Court Yelburga and renumbered as O.S. No. 90/2006.

The factual matrix of the case are as follows:

It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband had to bring fodder on 20.11.1998, while he was returning with fodder, loaded on his head, he had to pass on the road leading from Hanchinal to Gudadur, near the land of Sangappa and thereby he had came into contact of electric wire connected to the electric pole bearing No. 26 GPR 4-6-68 of main line which was hanging and touched to the wet fodder which was on the head of the husband of the plaintiff and got electric shock and thereby sustained grievous injuries and portion of his body was burnt and he became unconscious and he was rushed to the Government Hospital Hiremannapur and admitted for treatment till 21.08.1999 and Doctor advised him to get further treatment at KMC Hubli, but due to his poverty, he did not go to Hubli. Again he was admitted to PHC Hiremannapur on 10.11.1999 and discharged on 20.11.1999. Even after getting medical treatment, he died on 21.11.1999.

It is further case of the plaintiff that her husband was an agricultural coolie. The plaintiff being a poor lady was put to much hardship and she was not owning and possessing any property. The plaintiff had lost an earning member of the family and the Police also registered a case in F.A. No. 5/1998 dated 30.12.1998. Therefore, she sought for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

The defendant filed written statement denied the plaint averments and contended that the defendants are not liable to pay any compensation and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and also contended that the deceased person died due to his negligence and not on the negligence on the part of the defendants and defendants have no knowledge of hanging wire and also leakage of electricity energy and further contended that the cause of action alleged in the plaint is imaginary and plaintiff has no locus standi to claim compensation against the defendants and suit is not maintainable. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether plaintiff proves that her husband bringing the wet fodder on his head leading from Hanchinal to Gudadur village dated 20.11.1998 hanging of a wire connected to pole No. 26 GPR 4-6-68 of a main line and which was touched to the wet fodder on the had of the deceased Balappa he got electric shock and thereby sustained grievous injuries?

Whether plaintiff further proves that during the treatment the deceased Balappa died on dated 21.11.1999 and criminal case was registered defendants were having the knowledge, due to negligence on the part of the defendants No. 3 to 6, her husband died?

Whether the defendants prove that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?

Whether defendants further proves that there is no fault of the defendants and the deceased Balappa not taken proper treatment as per the advise of the doctor?

Whether plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?

What order or decree?"

In order to substantiate plaintiff''s claim, she has examined as P.W. 1 and other witnesses as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and produced Exs. P-1 to P-14. Defendant No. 3 examined as D.W. 1 and not produced any documents.

After considering the entire material on record, the trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff proved that her husband was bringing the wet fodder on his head leading from Hanchinal to Gudadur village on 20.11.1998 hanging wire connected to pole No. 26 GPR 4-6-68 of main line which was touched to the wet fodder on the head of the deceased Balappa and got electric shock and thereby he sustained grievous injuries and also recorded a fact that the plaintiff further proved during the treatment of the deceased, he died on 21.11.1999 and criminal case was registered against the defendants. Due to negligence on the part of defendant Nos. 3 to 6, plaintiff''s husband died and further held that the defendant Nos. 3 to 4 failed to prove that suit was not maintainable and also defendants failed to prove that there is no fault of the defendants and deceased Balappa not taken proper treatment, as per evidence of the Doctor and ultimately suit came to decreed in part, granting compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- in favour of the plaintiff.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed R.A. No. 13/2011 for enhancement and defendants filed R.A. No. 14/2011 for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the Fast Track Court�I, Koppal, who after hearing both the parties by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.02.2012 has allowed R.A. No. 13/2011 with costs and modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court and enhanced Rs. 4,00,000/- with 6% interest and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants with costs.

Against the said judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, only against dismissal of the appeal R.A. No. 14/2011 dated 18.02.2012 the present Regular Second Appeal is filed.

Defendants have not filed any appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2012 made in R.A. No. 13/2011 enhancing the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with costs and interest.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

Shri Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for the appellants KPTCL has contended that the accident occurred on 20.11.1998 and the deceased was expired on 20.11.1999 and he died due to his negligence after lapse of one year and both the Courts below has not considered the said aspect. Thereby granted compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- erroneously and also contended that both the Courts below have committed an error in assessing the compensation as quantified in the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, he sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below.

Per contra, Shri B. Sharanabasawa, learned counsel for the caveator respondent No. 1 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below and further contended that the appellants has not filed any appeal against the judgment and decree made in R.A. No. 13/2011 enhancing the compensation to Rs. 4,00,000/- with 6% interest and costs. Therefore, he contended that the present appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the entire material on record.

The admitted facts of the case are that according to the plaintiff, her husband was died due to electrocution on 20.11.1999 and he was only earning member in the family, as an agricultural coolie and entire family depending upon his income and plaintiff has no property at all and it is the negligence on the part of the defendants due to which her husband died. In support of her case, she adduced evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked documents Exs. P-1 to P-14. The defendants except D.W. 3 who have examined as D.W. 1 accepting the statement has not produced any document to disprove the claim of the plaintiff. The fact remains that the husband of the plaintiff was died due to electrocution is not in dispute. The trial Court considering the entire material on record come to the definite conclusion that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 specifically stated that electric wire connected to the said pole was being loosened and it was very dangerous to the public and several times the same was informed to the defendants regarding hanging wire and in spite of the information given by the P.Ws. 2 and 3, defendants have not taken any action to repair and P.W. 2 was eyewitness and P.W. 3 was a Panchayat member informed about hanging wire of said pole, but defendants have not taken care and repaired the same, due to which plaintiff''s husband came into contact with the hanging wire and died.

Ex. P-1 is the complaint filed by Town Police Station on 30.12.1998; Ex. P-2 is a spot panchanama conducted by the Investigating Officer on 20.11.1998; Ex. P-3 wound certificate issued by Medical Officer, PHC Hiremannapur on 22.08.1999 showing the age of the deceased about 35 years and the report disclosed that the deceased was died due to electrocution shock and the Doctor, who has examined the deceased has opined that the injuries at Sl. Nos. 1 to 5 collectively considered as grievous in nature and can be caused by electric shock; Exs. P-4 and P-5 are the discharge certificate; Ex. P-6 the medical bills, Ex. P-7 is the FIR and Ex. P-8 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants on 30.11.2001 calling upon the defendants to settle the matter and or to pay the damages due to the death of her husband; Ex. P-9 is the reply notice by the KPTCL; Ex. P-10 is the postal receipts and Ex. P-11 is the death certificate; Ex. P-12 is the income certificate; Ex. P-13 is the record of rights; Ex. P-14 is the election identity card issued by the jurisdictional authority and accordingly, the trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff proved that her husband died due to the electrocution on the wet fodder on the head of the deceased and he got electric shock and subsequently he died on 20.11.1999 due to the negligence on the part of the defendants.

The trial Court also recorded a finding that the deceased was in the electric shock and the incident took place on 20.11.1998 and the deceased died on 20.11.1999 and he was taken treatment in the Government Hospital and he was the only earning member in the family. Plaintiff is the wife of the deceased and she is a widow and she is leading very miserable life. When the husband of the plaintiff was died, he was only earning member in his family. The plaintiff has produced the wound certificate which clearly indicates that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. Considering the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the trial Court adopted the multiplier as 15 and the income was taken as Rs. 100/- per day and the income of the deceased calculated as 100 X 30 X 12 : 36,000/-. The plaintiff has produced some medical bills. Therefore, towards loss of earning Rs. 3,60,000/- and towards funeral expenses, medical treatment and transportation charges Rs. 15,000/- and in total Rs. 3,75,000/- was awarded.

On re-appreciation of the entire material on record, the lower Appellate Court recorded a finding that the appeal filed by the plaintiff in R.A. No. 13/2011 is required for enhancement. Accordingly, it was enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% and appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed holding that the defendant has not proved any negligence on the part of the deceased. Concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court, the appeal was dismissed.

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed the suit for compensation claiming Rs. 5,00,000/- due to the death of her husband and after considering the entire material on record, the trial Court granted Rs. 3,75,000/- as compensation. The plaintiff also filed R.A. No. 13/2011 for enhancement which was came to be allowed by the impugned judgment and decree of the dated 18.02.2012. Admittedly, the said decree made in R.A. No. 13/2011 is not at all challenged and the defendants agreed for Rs. 4,00,000/- with 6% interest with costs. When the appeal filed by the plaintiff has been allowed, the enhanced compensation is not challenged and they are challenging only the decree of the trial Court granting Rs. 3,75,000/-. Both the Courts concurrently held that the deceased husband of the plaintiff was died due to the negligence on the part of the defendants. Therefore, they are entitled compensation. The said finding is based on the cogent legal evidence on record, the appellant has not made out any prima facie case to interfere by exercising the provisions under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The fact remains that the deceased died due to electrocution and due to negligence on the part of the defendants. The defendants/appellants except denying the plaint averments no documentary evidence is produced before court to settle the dispute by paying any initial compensation to the wife of the deceased or took any action against the erring official who was responsible for negligence and electrocution of the deceased person. The defendant-Corporation has not taken any efforts to avoid such accident. It is always common case of the defendants that whenever a person dies due to electrocution, the first defence of the defendants would be the death was occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased appellant and not on the part of the officials.

Unfortunately, the department has not taken any interest either to set right the hanging wire of the said poles on the streets immediately inspite of repeated complaints made by the general public and in the present case it is PWs. 2 and 3, who are eye witness and a panchayat member has made complaint. Unfortunately, the defendants seems to have no value for human lives. It is the bounden duty of the defendants to maintain electrical installations in proper condition and the deceased was not aware of the electrical leakage till he came into contact with the hanging live wire and died subsequently. This is nothing but an act of criminal negligence on the part of the defendant-Corporation. Because of the negligence on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff has become destitute which is nothing but violation of Article 21 of the constitution of India. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the deceased died due to his own negligence and he has not taken proper treatment, and not due to negligence on the part of the defendants/respondents cannot be accepted.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below which is based on oral and documentary evidence on record and the same is in accordance with law. The appellant has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the well crafted judgment and decree of the courts below, while exercising power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.