IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR C.C.C.A.No.159 of 1998 BETWEEN: A.P. State Electricity Board rep. by its Member Secretary … APPELLANT (S) And S.Venkat Rao and others … RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR C.C.C.A.No.159 of 1998 JUDGMENT: Appellant, the then Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB), is the first defendant in O.S.No.1278 of 1994 on the file of the Court of First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (trial Court). 2. The first plaintiff in the said suit is the father of the second plaintiff. The suit was brought for recovery of Rs.4,01,156/- towards medical expenses, other expenses and pain and suffering on the ground that the second plaintiff suffered grievous injuries and disability due to electrocution suffered by him because of the alleged negligence of the officials and employees of the appellant in laying High Tension power lines. The trial Court, after contest, has by its judgment and decree dated 06.05.1998 partly decreed the said suit for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of the suit till realization. It is observed by the trial Court in the judgment that since the appellant has already paid the suit costs of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiffs in the previous proceedings taken by it for setting aside the earlier ex parte decree passed against it, there shall be no order as to costs. Questioning the said judgment and decree, the APSEB has come up with this appeal. 3. To state and decide the points that arise for determination in this appeal the respective cases of the parties should be noted and hereafterwards for convenience they shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. The first plaintiff admittedly owns a house in plot No.142 of Central Bank of India colony at Mansoorabad village. He constructed the said house after obtaining the necessary permission from the Mansoorabad Gram Panchayat in the said Central Bank of India colony at Mansoorabad and occupied it in the year 1988. The alleged electrocution accident complained in the plaint occurred on 03.02.1991. The second plaintiff being the son of the first plaintiff was residing with the first plaintiff in the said house on the date of the electrocution accident. The version of the plaintiffs is that High Tension power lines are passing through the Central Bank of India colony at Mansoorabad where the house of the first plaintiff is situate and it is the version of the plaintiffs that the said power lines are passing overhead not only the house of the first plaintiff but also other houses in that area and despite a representation made by the first plaintiff and other inhabitants of the said Central Bank of India colony, the APSEB i.e. the first defendant did not remove the said lines. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 03.02.1991 the second plaintiff went to the terrace of their house and was removing the out door T.V.Antenna from the roof of the house and in that process the said T.V.Antenna went into contact with the power lines passing over the house of the plaintiffs and the second plaintiff suffered electrocution and sustained severe burns. The plea of the plaintiffs is that this electrocution accident occurred only due to the negligence of the officials of the APSEB in not removing the power lines. 5. Explaining the negligence aspect on the part of the officials of the APSEB, it is stated by the plaintiffs that the 33 KV power line passing over the house of the plaintiff was at a height of eight feet above the roof of the house of the first plaintiff and that in summer season its altitude would also fall down by 2 to 3' due to sagging. The plea of the plaintiffs is that despite several representations from the inhabitants of the said Bank colony the APSEB officials did not bother to remove the said power lines and it was because of that the above electrocution accident occurred in which the second plaintiff suffered severe burns and injuries and therefore the APSEB must be held responsible for the said accident and injuries to the second plaintiff. 6. The further plea of the plaintiffs is that after the accident the second plaintiff was taken to the Apollo Hospitals, Hyderabad, for treatment and the first plaintiff being his father incurred a medical expenditure of Rs.1,82,156/- for the treatment of the second plaintiff for over a considerable period and the second plaintiff who was studying second year intermediate at that time also lost one academic year. Apart from the above medical expenses the plaintiffs also claimed various amounts towards special dietary charges and other expenses in connection with the treatment of the second plaintiff and in all they made a total claim for Rs.4,01,156/- towards compensation against the APSEB. 7. The first defendant (APSEB) in its written statement denied that it was responsible for the electrocution and injuries of the second plaintiff. It is the case of the first defendant that even before the construction of the houses of the bank employees including the house of the first plaintiff in the Central Bank of India colony in Mansoorabad, it already laid 33 KV power lines over the said area. It then says that as per rules the first plaintiff or the other employees of the Central Bank of India colony who constructed their houses did not take care to construct their houses in accordance with the rules and regulations which are in force under the relevant enactments and the rules relating to laying of power lines and supply of electricity and consequently the first defendant cannot be held responsible for the electrocution of the second plaintiff and the injuries suffered by him. The rules mentioned by the first defendant will be mentioned in detail infra. It is also the case of the first defendant that the second plaintiff who was a boy aged about 17 or 18 years negligently removed the T.V.Antenna without noticing the power lines and himself became responsible for the accident and consequently it cannot be held liable for the claim. It then pleaded that the compensation amount claimed is also excessive. The second defendant is the District Collector, Hyderabad, and he was impleaded to the suit when it was presented as a Pauper O.P. but that aspect is not in dispute now and hence it is not considered. 8. The details of oral and documentary evidence let in by plaintiffs and the first defendant are given in the appendix of evidence given at the foot of the trial Court’s judgment and therefore they are not repeated here. The trial Court after considering the evidence let in by both sides has by its judgment and decree in appeal partly decreed the suit for Rs.2,00,000/- with interest as mentioned supra. 9. In this appeal, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the APSEB has repeated its pleadings and argued that the first defendant cannot be made liable for the claim and the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence and in decreeing the suit and that therefore the judgment and decree of the trial Court should be reversed. He drew my attention to certain rules of the Indian Electricity Rules and other aspects in the evidence and pointed out that they show that the accident occurred only due to the fault of the plaintiffs and the first defendant cannot be made answerable for the claim. He then argued about the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court and stated that it is on high side and in this connection he also pointed out that the plaintiffs did not examine any Surgeon or Doctor who is said to have treated the second plaintiff and simply believed the medical reports and the bills filed by the plaintiffs without the supporting evidence of the Doctor and that the rate of interest awarded by it is also excessive and therefore the trial Court can be said to have committed an error in this behalf also. He argued that taking into account the above aspects the judgment and decree of the trial Court must be set aside and the first defendant must be exonerated from all liability. On the other hand Sri V.Srinivasa Rao the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs urged that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and granted the amounts which it did and therefore there is no ground to interfere with the said judgment of the trial Court. 10. On the pleadings and the arguments addressed in this Court, the following points arise for determination in this appeal. (i) Whether the electrocution accident pleaded by the plaintiffs resulting in injuries to the second plaintiff has occurred and if so whether it can be attributed to the fault of the officials of the APSEB? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the trial Court is proper or excessive? (This point depends upon the answer to point No.1) (iii) Whether the interest awarded by the trial Court is proper? (iv) To what relief? Point No.1: 11. The respective cases of the plaintiffs and the first defendant on this point have already been set out supra. The version of plaintiffs 1 and 2 i.e. P.Ws.1 and 2 is that on 03.02.1991 the second plaintiff tried to remove the T.V.Antenna from the roof top of the house and in that process it came into contact with the High Tension power lines passing over their house and became live resulting in electrocution injuries to the second plaintiff. The version of both P.Ws.1 and 2 is that since the aforesaid power lines were passing over the roof top of their house at a lower altitude than the required altitude the accident has occurred. The version of plaintiffs 1 and 2 is that the second plaintiff suffered extensive burns below the waist due to electrocution in the above accident. A perusal of their evidence shows that the accident as such and injuries to the second plaintiff have not been disputed by the APSEB. 12. The trial Court relied upon Rules 79 and 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which prescribe the procedure and also the heights/altitudes from the ground level which have to be followed by an electric supplier in laying power lines. The trial Court has extracted Rules 79 and 80 in its judgment. Rule 79 says that where a low or medium voltage over head line is to pass above any building or flat a vertical clearance of 2.5 meters from the highest point on that building should be maintained. 13. Rule 80 lays down that where a high or extra high voltage over head line passes over the roof of any building, for a high voltage line a height of 3.7 meters and for extra high voltage line a height of 3.7 meters + 0.30 meters should be maintained from the highest point of that building. In this case, as High Tension wire is said to be passing over the building of the plaintiff we are concerned with Rule 80 only. In the present case, P.W.2 S.Venkata Rao i.e. the father of the second plaintiff/injured in his cross-examination stated that the distance between the roof of his house and the High Tension wire is eight feet (8') but in the summer season or other seasons when there is sagging he stated that the height may fall by about two feet (2') and similar is the version of P.W.1 also i.e. the first plaintiff. The above height is definitely less than 3.7 meters mentioned in Rule 80 for High Tension wires and this is not disputed and this is also evident from the deposition of D.W.1 the Assistant Engineer. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the above Rule 80 and the distance to be maintained between the roof top of the house and the High Tension wire as stipulated in that Rule, and argued that since the said distance was not maintained despite several representations from the first plaintiff and the other inhabitants of that area the first defendant alone must be held responsible for the electrocution of the second plaintiff. 14. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the first defendant is that the High Tension wires/lines in question were already laid way back in 1980 or even prior to that period and therefore Rules 79 or 80 are not applicable and that the relevant rule is Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. He says that according to this Rule 82, the first plaintiff and the owners of the other buildings in the Central Bank of India Colony in question should have constructed their houses in compliance with Rules 79 or 80 on their part and since they did not comply with the said Rules the first defendant cannot be made liable for the electrocution of the second plaintiff. From the evidence it transpires that the power lines in question were already laid before the construction of the houses in the Central Bank of India Colony of Mansoorabad including the house of the first plaintiff. No doubt, this contention appears to be apparently forceful but the following circumstances show that it cannot be accepted. 15. A perusal of Rule 82 shows that where the power lines were already laid over a particular area and a house or building is constructed subsequently the owner of such building or the contractor who constructed it is required by Rule 82 to comply with Rules 79 and 80 while constructing the building. In other words, what the said Rule requires is that when a new building is constructed in an area where the power lines were already laid before such construction the owner of such building is required to take safe measures in maintaining the height of the building as required by Rules 79 and 80. The learned counsel for the APSEB therefore says that the fault lies upon the plaintiffs especially the first plaintiff in not complying with Rules 79 and 80 while the power lines already laid there were laid in compliance with the ground clearance heights as required by the said rules. The contention of the APSEB appears to be that since the first plaintiff and other inhabitants of that area violated the said rules their buildings or structures must be held to be unauthorized and therefore APSEB cannot be made answerable. 16. It may however be noted that P.W.2 i.e. the first plaintiff and P.W.3 another house owner of that area have deposed that even before the construction of their houses they made a representation to the first defendant’s officials and even after the construction of their houses they made a representation to its officials for removing the wires/power lines or to increase their height so as to avoid electrocution accidents and other accidents which may occur due to low lying power lines over their houses and that there was no action on the part of the first defendant. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon Ex.A.1 copy of the representation dated 09.12.1988 said to have been submitted prior to the occupation of his house by the first plaintiff and also Exs.A.23 and A.24 representations (copies) dated 26.01.1993 and 10.08.1992 said to have been given by the inhabitants of their colony to the first defendant for removing the power lines or increasing their height. The first defendant denied that the above representations were received by it. It is highly improbable to believe this version of the first defendant. 17. It may be noted that this is not a case where the house of the first plaintiff alone has been constructed in that locality. Several employees of the Central Bank of India purchased plots and constructed their houses and P.Ws.1 and 3 say that they did give representations. It may also be noted that the first plaintiff has also filed Ex.A.10 dated 18.07.1984 which is the permission of the Gram Panchayat, Mansoorabad, permitting him to construct his house. In such a situation the officials of the first defendant as responsible officers should have immediately inspected the area as they are public servants following the representations mentioned above and should have brought to the notice of the inhabitants of that locality Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, and informed them that they violated Rules 79 and 80 and that for their safety it would take steps to increase the height of the power lines as required by Rules 79 and 80 and that the said inhabitants should also pay the cost of alteration charges as contemplated under Rule 82. 18. The officials of the Electricity Board did not take action on the above lines. Hence, the Electricity Board itself has to be held responsible for its above lapse. In my opinion, the electricity board being an undertaking run by the State Government and having regard to the fact that State Government has to look after the welfare of the people a burden lay upon the first defendant to inform the inhabitants and take steps to remove the power lines and erect them again in accordance with Rules 79 and 80 or to alter them as required under Rule 82 after collecting the alteration charges from the inhabitants of that area where the first plaintiff’s house is situate. 19. In this connection, it would be useful to note what our Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in H.S.E.B. vs. RAM NATH[1]. This was also a case where a child died as a result of coming into contact with a High Tension wire which passed over the roof of her/her parents house. The defence of the Haryana State Electricity Board was that the entire colony consisting of the various houses in which the house of the deceased child was situated were unauthorisedly constructed and that the owners of the said houses did not maintain the required distance between the height of the houses and the power lines which were already laid before the construction of the said houses. It appears that the above defence was based upon Rules 79 and 80 and especially Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, which are already mentioned supra. Rejecting the said defence it was held in the above decision that the electricity board concerned was carrying on a business of supplying electricity which is inherently dangerous and that they must be attributed with the knowledge that if a person were to come into contact with a High Tension wire he is bound to receive serious injury or even die. It was also held that if the electricity board felt that the houses in question were raised unauthorisedly the electricity board should have taken steps to demolish the houses by approaching appropriate authorities or alternatively they should ensure that required height is maintained between the roof top of the house and the power line passing over it. It was further held that if the electricity board failed to take either of the above courses it must be held liable as it was doing a business of supplying electricity which was inherently dangerous. 20. The above decision would be a complete answer to the objection/argument of the learned counsel for the first defendant/APSEB. The second plaintiff who was injured was on the date of accident a boy about 17 or 18 years and he was not a grown up adult. He cannot be expected to pay attention or foresee or anticipate that when he was lifting the T.V.Antenna it may go into contact with the live power line passing over his house. He may not be a child but the principle laid down in the above decision equally applies here. 21. In the present case also the first defendant, when many houses of the Central Bank of India employees have come up, it should have informed them about Rule 82 position and collected from them the necessary alteration charges to increase the height of the power lines so as to comply with Rules 79 and 80 or should have taken steps to pull down the said houses by approaching appropriate authorities on the ground that the said house owners violated Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. It may be noted that this is not a case where the first plaintiff’s house is an isolated house which was raised there but there were several houses. In such a situation the first defendant electricity board which is run by the State should have taken action in either of the above modes. Having not taken that action it cannot now escape from its liability. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs confirming the finding of the trial Court. Point No.2: 22. Coming to this point, it may be noted that in view of the finding under point No.1 it follows that the second plaintiff is in principle entitled to compensation. It should be noted here that plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs.1,27,751/- towards medical expenses in the Apollo Hospital, a sum of Rs.3,405/- towards medical expenses after the discharge of the second plaintiff from the hospital, a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards travelling expenses plus blood purchases expenses and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment charges. It may then be noted that the plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs.21,000/- towards the leave salary of the first plaintiff i.e. the father of the second plaintiff on the plea that he was forced to go on leave to look after the treatment of the second plaintiff. Then they claimed various other amounts not connected with the treatment. 23. The trial Court after considering the evidence granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and all other expenses. The second plaintiff did not file any cross-appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on this Count and therefore the question of enhancing it now does not arise. The learned counsel for the first defendant argued that the trial Court simply went by Exs.A.2 to A.7 medical bills, Ex.A.8 medical bills, Exs.A.13 to A.21 medical reports of Apollo Hospital and Ex.A.22 another medical report and granted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- without the plaintiffs examining any Doctor who treated the second plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs pointed out that the plaintiffs in all claimed more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other expenses and going by the injuries suffered by the second plaintiff, the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the trial Court towards medical expenses and other expenses can be held reasonable. 24. It may be noted that it is the version of both the plaintiffs that after the electrocution injuries, the second plaintiff’s body below the abdomen got paralyzed and the second plaintiff could recover from injuries only because of his careful treatment in the Apollo Hospital and recovered subsequently. The injuries of the plaintiff or their gravity have not been disputed by the first defendant. It may be noted that many of the bills filed by the plaintiffs are given by Apollo Hospital which is a corporate hospital and nothing was elicited from P.Ws.1 and 2 to show that they were got up. Having regard to his injuries mentioned by P.W.2 and the expenses mentioned by P.W.1, the trial Court considered that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- would be reasonable even in the absence of the evidence of the Doctor. Having regard to the reasoning given by the trial Court it can be said that its decree for Rs.1,00,000/- on this count can be upheld even in the absence of the evidence of the Doctor concerned. 25. The trial Court then proceeded to grant another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering both physical and mental said to have been suffered by the second plaintiff and also the first