IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.2618 of 2008 Between: Manchinti Chandrakala. … Petitioner And Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd (APSPDCL), reptd., by its Managing Director, Tirupati and three others. . … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Balagopal. Counsel for the respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy for R.1 & R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 in taking steps to prevent theft of power for electrifying the fences around agricultural fields, resulting in death of the petitioner’s husband by electrocution in Diguvagottiveedu village, Chinnamandem Mandal, Cuddapah District, on the night of 30-3-2006, as unlawful dereliction of duty and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner is the wife of one person, by name, Manchinti Jarayam (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). She belongs to Schedule caste. On 30-3- 2006 the deceased, who was tending the sheep of another person, by name, Charlapalli Venkatrayudu, left his house stating that he was going to his Master’s place. He did not return home thereafter and three days later his body was found in a well. On the complaint received by the Police of Chinnamandem Police Station, case in Crime No.20 of 2006 was registered on 4-4-2006. After autopsy, the cause of death was confirmed as death due to electrocution. Four persons were prosecuted in connection with the death of the deceased. The case was tried as S.C.No.108 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Raychoty. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge while holding that the death was due to electrocution as evident from the post-mortem certificate and evidence of the medical officer, however, acquitted the accused by giving the finding that the evidence on record was not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the deceased came into contact with the live wire erected by A.1 at his fields and died due to electric shock. Though Sri K.Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that while the cause of death is not in dispute, whether the persons prosecuted in the said criminal case were responsible for misusing the electricity by placing the live wire around their fields or somebody else have done it is not very much relevant. He submitted that the Southern Power Distribution Company- respondent No.1 is vicariously responsible for the misuse of electricity, which resulted in death of the deceased. In order to award appropriate compensation to the petitioner, it is necessary for this Court to give findings not only regarding the cause of death, but also on the negligence alleged against respondent No.1 and its officials. In order to give such a finding, it is necessary for the parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, without which no conclusive findings can be rendered. Unless negligence on the part of respondent No.1 is established, it cannot be vicariously held liable. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction to claim compensation by raising necessary pleadings and adducing relevant evidence. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 has been paying exgratia for the death of persons, who died due to electrocution. Since the cause of death is not in dispute, it is just and proper for respondent No.1 to pay exgratia to the petitioner. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that instead of payment of revised exgratia of Rs.1.00 lakh, respondents 1 and 2 may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards exgratia. Having regard to this submission, while giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before the competent forum for claiming compensation, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards exgratia to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17-6-2009 MNR