Transmission Corporation Of A.P. vs Mahmood

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2005 in O.S.No.10 of 2004, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Manthani, whereby the suit seeking compensation for the death of Mujahid Ali, aged 12 years and Sujayath Ali, aged 7 years, sons of plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2, was decreed awarding compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation.

The appellants herein are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh and the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Andhra Pradesh TRANSCO, Manthani and the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein are the plaintiffs in the main suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

The case of the plaintiffs is that on 22.07.2003 at about 7-00 p.m. the deceased-Mujahid Ali and Sujayath Ali were returning to their house after watching T.V. programmes in neighbour’s house. They came into contact with the support wire of electric pole fixed on the turning corner. As the said wire was live in which electricity was passing, both of them died on the spot due to electrocution. The defendants are the suppliers of electricity in Manthani village where the said Mujahid Ali and Sujayath Ali were electrocuted. It is their statutory duty to maintain the works properly so as to avoid any loss of life or other damage to the general public. Due to the negligence of the defendants, the electricity was passing at the relevant time in the said supporting wire of electric pole fixed by the defendants and thereby said persons who came into contact with the supporting wire unknowingly without any premonition were electrocuted. In the Janma Bhoomi programme by name Sri Sripathi Banayya, submitted a written memorandum to the Nodal Officer with a request to cause immediate repair to prevent passing of electric energy from the said pole but no steps were taken by the defendants. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Divisional Magistrate, Manthani initiated magisterial enquiry regarding said electrocution of Mujahid Ali and Sujayath Ali on 22.7.2003, which is pending vide file No.E/703/03.

It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the deceased Mujahid ali and Sujayath Ali are the only issues of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.1 had undergone ‘Tubectomy Operation’ on 18.11.1996 at Karimnagar. Therefore, they cannot be getting children any more. The plaintiffs lost their two sons on account of electrocution. The plaintiffs gave notice of said occurrence of electrocution happened on 22.7.2003 to the Electrical Inspector, on 12.12.2003 under Section 33 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, but no enquiry is held so far, to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.2 is in possession of a residential hut bearing Door No.2/15/3A constructed by him in about 1 ½ guntas. Out of Sy.No.90 situated at Manthani about 12 years back. The plaintiff No.2 being a labourer his said hut is exempt from attachment under proviso (c) of Section (60) of C.P.C. No other property is in possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs clamed Rs.5 lakhs each and a total sum of Rs.10 lakhs against the defendants towards compensation for the loss and damage caused to them due to the death of their only two sons, caused by negligent, tortuous acts of the defendants. The plaintiffs may be permitted to sue as indigent persons under Order 33, Rule 8 C.P.C.

The defendants have filed written statement denying the averments of the plaintiffs. It is their case that there is no power supply in the said support wire. The electric pole stay wire was erected long back and it was obstructing the persons going on the said road, they have mischievously removed it and tied it to the pole. On 22.7.2003 the deceased persons opened the stay wire which was tied to the pole and spinning it around the pole and they are playing it like “Rangula Ratnam” and due to spinning, the supper side of the wire touched to the live wire of the street light and the supply came to it due to which the incident occurred. On the said Janma Bhoomi programme, the Assistant Engineer of defendants also present on behalf of Andhra Pradesh Transco and he also not received any complaint from the petitioners about the stay wire which was passing the electric, the plaintiffs are suppressing the actual facts of the case and fabricating the facts to get huge compensation from the defendants. Further it is admitted that the plaintiffs gave an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct enquiry about the incident. The deceased persons and their parents have not taken any precautions to avoid the incident and came into contact by playing with the live wire. The plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation even though the defendants paid an ex-gratia of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff No.2 on humanitarian grounds and the plaintiff signed for the full settlement and promised that they will not file any suit for compensation against the defendants. Further the plaintiffs never give any notice on 22.7.2003 and the defendants not received any notice under Section 33 of Indian Electricity Act.

Based on the above pleading, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

Whether late Mujahid Ali and Sujayath Ali who are the sons of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 died on 22.07.2003 at Manthani due to electrocution?

Whether the plaintiff No.1 undergone Tubectomy operation on 18.11.1996 at Karimnagar?

Whether the plaintiffs can claim Rs.5 lakhs each in total ten lakhs against the defendant towards compensation for the loss and damage caused to them due to the death of their two sons?

Whether the defendant was negligent while discharging their duties?

Whether there is a cause of action in the suit?

Whether the defendants are discharging their duties sincerely without any fault?

Whether defendants did not receive under Section 33 of Indian Electricity Act?

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit

To what relief?

The plaintiffs, to support their case, have examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.A1 to A15. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. The Court below on appreciating the evidence on record has decreed the suit as indicated above.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendant No.2 is that there is no negligence on the part of defendants. However, the trial Court has erred in fastening liability without there being any independent evidence. The deceased died due to their own negligence only. Therefore, the appellant herein is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the trial Court and the rate of interest awarded on it is on higher side and it should not be more than 7.5%.

The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs contended that the trial Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.

Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased persons due to electrocution. The plaintiffs in support of their pleadings, they are examined as PWs.1 and 2, who reiterated their plaint averments. Further PW-3 Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of Majayath Ali and Md.Sujayath Ali clearly opined that the cause of death of both the deceased boys is due to electrocution. He issued Ex.A3 and A6 post-mortem examination reports to that effect. PWs.4 and 5 are the panch witnesses for inquest. Further the evidence of PW-6 clearly shows that on 10.7.2003 on the occasion of 19th Janmabhoomi programme, he gave an application to the Nodal Officer that on the way to Godavarikhani near Bus Depot main line electricity pole support wire was loose in touching with the live line electricity was passing in it and there is danger to human life and the Nodal Officer directed the Electricity Authorities, Manthani to attend the said repair work but they failed to get it repaired. Though the defendants have disputed the death of deceased, after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 coupled with the documentary evidence the trial Court rightly held that the death of the deceased persons was due to the electrocution and as such, both the respondents are equally responsible for the death of the deceased and therefore, both of them liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Judge.

As regards the quantum of compensation, P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that both the deceased are school going children and the deceased No.1 was aged 12 years and deceased No.2 was aged 7 years at the time of their death. The deceased are only issues to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. Further Ex.A7 shows that plaintiff No.1 underwent Tubectomy operation on 18.11.1996 and there is no scope of procuring children in future. Due to the death of their children due to electrocution, their total life became upset. Therefore considering the above facts and circumstances, the trial Court rightly awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each for both children and as the plaintiffs have received Rs.20,000/- from the second defendant towards ex-gratia, the same will be deducted from Rs.6,00,000/- and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for Rs.5,80,000/- which is just and reasonable. The said findings of the trial Court are on appreciation of the evidence in proper perspective which needs no interference in this appeal. However, the rate of interest thereon awarded by the trial Court at 12% per annum is on higher side in the opinion of this Court. Hence, this Court is inclined to reduce the rate of interest from 12% to 7.5% per annum.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the quantum of compensation and the equal liability thereof on both the defendants, the rate of interest is hereby reduced from 12% to 7.5% per annum. The compensation amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In all other respects, the order of the trial Court stands confirmed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.