THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. No. 1013 of 2003 Judgment: This is an appeal filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2003 passed in O.S. No.16 of 2001 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The first plaintiff is the wife of late Lalaiah. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the minor daughters of late Lalaiah and the first plaintiff. Since they are minors, they are being represented by their mother and natural guardian the first plaintiff. Their case is that on 28.10.1997 at about 10.30 PM while Lalaiah (hereinafter called as the deceased) was returning to his house from the fields, he came in contact with a live electric wire lying on the road at the house of Uppuleti Chandraiah in Potharam village. Due to darkness the deceased could not notice the wire on the road. He died instantaneously at the spot. Their further case is that the defendants who are the officials of electricity department were negligent and due to their failure to take precautions to prevent the accident, the accident had occurred and that the defendants are liable on account of negligence of their staff and liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. It is also their case that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day and was contributing about Rs.1500/- per month towards the maintenance of his family members. Had he not died, the deceased would have lived another for another about 25 years and that the plaintiffs claimed total loss of earnings at Rs.3,60,000/-. The defendants specific case is that the accident occurred due to snapping of neutral wire and it was beyond the control of anybody and therefore they are not responsible for the death of the deceased and that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs. It is also their case that they had paid Rs.10,000/- towards exgratia to the plaintiffs. The trial Court framed the following issues. 1. Whether on 28.10.1997 at 10.00 PM at Potharam village there was no negligence on the part of defendant Nos.3 and 4 in maintaining electric lines properly? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Dasari Lalaiah? 3. To what relief the parties are entitled to? On behalf of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff, the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW.1 and one Edla Sathaiah, the Sarpanch of the village was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 - the Assistant Divisional Engineer, AP TRANSCO was examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court, having considered the entire oral and documentary evidence, partly decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present appeal. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants is that the accident occurred due to the snapping of electric wire and that the appellants had taken all precautionary measures in maintaining electricity wires and that they had already informed the villagers by beat of tom tom warning the people not to touch the fallen electric wires. It is also submitted that there is no proof of specific income of the deceased and in the above circumstances the judgment passed by the lower Court is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that the lower Court has considered the entire oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and on reasonable assessment of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the defendants and, therefore, they are liable to pay compensation. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the appellants/defendants are not responsible for the death of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 28.10.1997 at about 10.30 PM while the deceased was retuning to his house from the fields and when he came in contact with an electric wire, lying on the road in front of the house of one Uppuleti Chandraiah in Potharam village. Now it has to be seen who is responsible for lying of live electric wire on the road during night time. The only witness examined on behalf of the appellants/defendants is DW.1. Admittedly, DW.1 was not working during the relevant period in the area in which the accident had occurred. DW.1 admitted that the incident occurred due to snapping of neutral wire. According to him, it was beyond the control of any human being. Admittedly, the concerned officials who had to look after the day to day maintenance of electric poles and wires in Potharam area were not examined. Admittedly, the concerned lineman was also not examined. It is not clear as to what steps were taken by the Electricity Department to prevent snapping of wires. There is no evidence to show the age of the wire, maintenance of the electric poles and the time when the accident was reported to their department and the immediate action taken by them to avert the cases of electrocution. In fact, the department should make arrangements that information regarding the snapping of electric wires should reach their office as soon as a live electric wire is fallen on the road and within minutes they should stop the electricity in that area till the wire is removed from the road. In view of the scientific developments, the department should take steps and see that as and when an electric live wire falls down, there should be automatic stoppage of electricity passing through the wire. It is the primary duty of the department to maintain the wires and poles properly and prevent the accidents. There should be regular check-up and as and when wires become old or gained some rust such wires should be removed. In the absence of any incidents to show that the defendants were prompt in taking such actions before the accident or immediately after the accident the only presumption that can be drawn in the circumstances of the case is that the defendants were negligent in maintaining the electric lines. The reasoning given by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and legal position. There is nothing to disturb the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. As far as the age and income of the deceased are concerned the evidence of PW.1, the wife of the deceased, and PW.2 Sarpanch of the village throw some light. According to them, the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of incident. He was earning Rs.3000/- per month. There is no rebuttal evidence in this regard. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PWs.1 and 2. Mere paying of exgratia cannot be treated as reasonable compensation. The lower Court has correctly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.18000/- per annum and by applying the multiplier ‘16’ has determined the loss of dependency at Rs.2,88,000/-. The award of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25000/- as special damages towards loss of love and affection also appears to be reasonable. There is nothing to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 13.07.2010 Nsr