IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL No.1250 OF 2009 Between: 1. The Superintending Engineer, N.P.D.C. Limited, (formerly A.P. TRANSCO), Near Court Building, Karimnagar. 2. The Divisional Engineer, N.P.D.C. Limited, (formerly A.P. TRANSCO), Near Court Building, Karimnagar. 3. The Assistant Engineer, N.P.D.C. Limited, (formerly A.P. TRANSCO) L.M.D. Quarters, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District. - - - Appellants/Appellants/Defendants. AND Kallem Santhra and 3 others. - - - Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs. The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL No.1250 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), is directed against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.46 of 2007, dated 05-12-2008, on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.53 of 2003, dated 25-04-2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, were confirmed. 2. The appellants herein are defendants and the respondents herein are plaintiffs in the suit. 3. For a better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 4. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Second Appeal, may be stated as follows: Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the deceased Kallem Ravinder Reddy and plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are minor daughters of plaintiff No.1 and K. Ravinder Reddy and plaintiff No.4 is the mother of the deceased K. Ravinder Reddy. The deceased K. Ravinder Reddy was an agriculturist holding an extent of three acres of agricultural land in Survey Nos. 157 and 158 situated at Porandla village of Thimmapur Mandal. He was having an electric motor pump fitted to the well for the purpose of irrigation. On 24-07-2001 at about 09-00 a.m. while the deceased was ploughing his agricultural land with the help of bullocks, it came into contact with the supporting wire of electric pole, resulting electric shock to one of the bullocks and as a result one bullock and the deceased died on the spot. The defendants and their staff were negligent in maintaining the stay wires and electric lines and therefore the Suit was filed claiming damages of Rs.5,00,000/- consequent on the death of Ravinder Reddy. 5. The defendants filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that there was no negligence on their part and that they have paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the plaintiffs towards exgratia and that at the time of receiving the amount, they promised that they will not file any case in the Court of law and thereafter they filed the suit. Therefore, they pray the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the trial Court: 1) Whether the death of Ravinder Reddy is caused due to the negligence of the defendants’ department? 2) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the damages as prayed for? and 3) To what relief? 7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 8. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the defendants in leaving the stay wire without providing protective insulation and thereby caused the death of Ravinder Reddy and his bullock and accordingly partly decreed the suit by granting damages of Rs.3,35,000/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty five thousand only). Challenging the same, defendants filed A.S.46 of 2007 before the learned V District Judge, Karimnagar. The learned District Judge, after reappreciation of evidence confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. 9. Heard both the counsel. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased was having an extent of three acres of agricultural land in Survey Nos.157 and 158 at Porandla Village. It is also not in dispute that he was having an electric irrigated motor pump to the well. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died due to electric shock on 24-07-2010 while he was ploughing his agricultural land when he came into contact with the electric pole supporting wire. 11. Now the question is whether there is any negligence on the part of the defendants’ in causing the death of Ravinder Reddy? 12. Negligence is a gross culpable neglect or failure to exercise such care and caution that may be required to be taken in the circumstances of the case. The case of the plaintiffs is that if the electric wires were insulated properly, the question of passing electricity through the contacting wires would not arise and the deceased would not have sustained electric shock. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that their staff used to inspect electric lines periodically and that there was no complaint from anybody muchless from the plaintiffs for rectification of the lines and that therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the defendants. After the death of the deceased, the police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. As seen from the Postmortem report Ex.A-1, it is clear that the deceased died due to electric shock. Similarly, the police registered a case as in Ex.A-4. Ex.A-10 is death certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Thimmapur. 13. As the negligence has been established by the plaintiffs from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and the documents filed by them, the burden shifts to defendants to show that they have taken reasonable precaution so that the electricity would not pass through the supporting wire. There is no evidence to show that they have properly maintained the electric lines and that there was no negligence on their part. In view of the fact that the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 is not substantiated with any pleadings, their evidence has to be rejected. Any amount of evidence without there being any pleadings is valueless. Therefore, considering this aspect, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly found that there is negligence on the part of the defendants and estimated the compensation basing on the earnings of the deceased and as such none of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law because both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court gave findings on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Unless it is shown that substantial question of law involved in the appeal, the appeal needs to be dismissed at the stage of admission. The substantial questions of law as urged by the appellants Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be said to be substantial questions of law, because those questions of law are with reference to the appreciation of evidence. 14. Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal. There are no grounds to interfere with the same and the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed, as there is no substantial question of law involved. 15. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 05-12-2008, in A.S.No.46 of 2007, passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, leaving open the remedies available to the appellants. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants requested for two months time for depositing the entire amount. In view of his request, two months time is granted for depositing the amount failing which the respondents/plaintiffs can execute the decree. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 20-01-2010 DSH.