HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH APPEAL SUIT Nos.1902 OF 1993 & 1903 OF 1993 Dated 16th September, 2009 A.S. No.1902 of 1993: Between: The Chairman, A.P. State Electricity Board, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another. ….Appellants And: 1. Kothagudem Narasimha and another. …Respondents. A.S. No.1903 of 1993: Between: The Chairman, A.P. State Electricity Board, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another. …Appellants And: 1. P. Sattiah and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH APPEAL SUIT Nos.1902 OF 1993 & 1903 OF 1993 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals are directed against the judgment passed on 7th April, 1993 in O.S.Nos.350 of 1990 and 348 of 1990 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Saroornagar wherein and whereby both the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs therein. Since both the appeals arise out come of same relief and since the issue involved in both the appeals is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Both the above appeals have been preferred by defendants-1 and 2 respectively in the suits. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeals are as follows: O.S.No.No.350 of 1990: Originally, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.350 of 1990 in forma pauperies the trial Court claiming damages of Rs.50,000/- against the defendants. The 1st plaintiff is the father and 2nd plaintiff is the son. Late Smt. Laxmamma, who will hereinafter be referred to as the deceased for the sake of convenience, is the wife of the 1st plaintiff and mother of the 2nd plaintiff. It is averred in the plaint that on 15-5-1988, in the morning hours, the deceased went to attend her duties to collect beedi leaves along with one Smt. Mallamma as usual. Due to the negligent act of the Electricity Board, the defendants, as they did not maintain the electrical lines properly and kept the same loose, they fell on the deceased, as a result of which, she died on the same day due to electric shock. Apart from her, Smt. Mallamma who was accompanied the deceased also died due to electric shock. Due to the death of the deceased, the plaintiffs are deprived all sorts of earnings of the deceased at the rate of Rs.800/- to Rs.1,000/- per month and on her amenities in life. Hence, the plaintiffs are claiming damages at Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., The defendants filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint contending that the defendants have been taking all precautions in maintaining electrical lines properly and conducting periodical inspection of the lines and hence, the lines are perfectly alright. Due to the natural unforeseen acts, 33 K.V.Cross Arms might have slipped and came down to the ground level. The accident was an act of God or Vismajor. The death was due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, the defendants are not responsible for the occurrence and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. O.S.No.No.348 of 1990: Originally, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.348 of 1990 in forma pauperies before the trial Court claiming damages of Rs.50,000/- against the defendants. The 1st plaintiff is the father and 2nd plaintiff is the son. Late Smt. Mallamma, who will hereinafter be referred to as the deceased for the sake of convenience, is the wife of the 1st plaintiff and mother of the 2nd plaintiff. It is averred in the plaint that on 15-5-1988, in the morning hours, the deceased went to attend her duties to collect beedi leaves along with one K.Laxmi, as usual. Due to the negligent act of the Electricity Board, the defendants, as they did not maintain the electrical lines properly and kept the same loose, they fell on the deceased, as a result of which, she died on the same day due to electric shock. On the same day, Lakshmi who accompanied by her, also died due to electric shock. Due to the death of deceased, the plaintiffs deprived all sorts of earnings of the deceased at the rate of Rs.800/- to Rs.1,000/- per month apart from on her amenities. Hence, the plaintiffs are claiming damages at Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., The defendants filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint contending that the defendants have been taking all precautions in maintaining electrical lines properly and conducting periodical inspection of the lines and hence, the lines are perfectly alright. Due to the natural unforeseen acts, 33 K.V.Cross Arms might have slipped and come down to the ground level. The accident was an act of God or Vismajor. The death was due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, the defendants are not responsible for the occurrence and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Basing on the pleadings in both the suits, the following issues were settled before the trial Court separately in both the suits for trial: The trial Court framed the following issues in both the suits for trial: (Since the issues framed in both the suits are one and the same, they are extracted as follows:) 1. Whether the defendants are responsible for the accident occurred? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss of life of the deceased? 3. Whether the accident was an act of God or Vismajor? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiffs in both the suits, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. The Court below having observed that falling of the electricity wires in the instant case is only due to poor maintenance of the electrical lines and lack of proper provision and hence, the defendants are responsible for the occurrence of accident and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation, decreed the suits each for an amount of Rs.40,000/- with costs with future interest at 12% p.a., from the date of the decree, till the date of realization. It was further decreed that since the plaintiffs had filed the suits in forma pauperies, the defendants are liable to pay the Court fee. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in O.S.No.350 of 1990 filed the appeal in A.S.No.1902 of 1993 and the defendants in O.S.No.348 of 1990 filed the appeal in A.S.No.1903 of 1993, separately. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants- defendants in both the appeals that the Court below erred in deciding the issue No.3 against the appellants-defendants and it ought to have held that it is an act of God or Vismajor and consequently, there is no negligence on the part of the appellants-defendants. It is further contended that as per Ex.B.1, the speed of the wind is 41 K.Ms. per hour and the same is enough to dislocate the clamps, cross arms etc., and, hence, the Court below is in erred in not believing the same. Hence, the Judgment impugned is liable to be set aside by allowing these appeals. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs that the trial Court having observed rightly that falling of the electricity wires in the instant case is only due to poor maintenance of the electrical lines and lack of proper provision and hence, the defendants are responsible for the occurrence of the accident and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation and has rightly decreed the suits for an amount of Rs.40,000/- with costs with future interest at 12% p.a., Hence, the Judgment of the Court below in both the suits does not warrant any interference by this Court. I have perused the material available on record and the judgment impugned. The main grievance of the appellants-defendants is that they are very careful in maintaining the electrical lines apart from that they are also making periodical check to keep the electrical lines properly without any loose fitting etc., and that the incident is only an act of God and vismajor. The death of the deceased in both the suits occurred only due to the negligent act on the part of the deceased themselves. Hence, the defendants are not responsible for the same and are not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs. The main case of the respondents-plaintiffs is that due to the negligence on the part of the defendants, they lost the life of the deceased and also deprived of all sorts of earnings of the deceased in both the suits due to the death of the deceased apart from the amenities to them, which the deceased was providing. Hence, the Court below has rightly decreed the suit in their favour. It is an admitted fact that the deceased in both the suits died due to the electrocution on 15-5-1988 in the morning hours. It is also an admitted fact that the high-tension wires of the electricity slipped down to the ground from the pole on 15.5.1988. According to the appellants-defendants, the cross arms sipped down as the clamp fixed to it became loose due to heavy gale on the previous night i.e., on 14.5.1988. Ex.B.1 is the Weather Report. Even taking into consideration that there was heavy gale on 14-5-1988 in the night time, still according to Ex.B.1, the speed was only 41 K.M. per hour. In so many instances even if there will be high speed of gale and also heavy down pour of rain, the electricity wires commonly withstand such contingencies. Hence, I feel that the fall of the electricity wires is only due to the poor maintenance of the electrical lines and hence, the appellants-defendants are responsible for the occurrence of accident and hence, they are liable to pay compensation to the respondents-plaintiffs, as rightly observed by the Court below. The Court below in both the suits was, therefore, justified in decreeing the suits each for Rs.40,000/- as against the claim of the plaintiffs at Rs.50,000/-, with costs and future interest at 12% pa., Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment impugned in both the appeals. The appeal are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeals are dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 16th September, 2009 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH APPEAL SUIT Nos.1902 OF 1993 & 1903 OF 1993 Dated 16th September, 2009