THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH A.S.No.152 of 1994 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 29.06.1993, in O.S.No.41 of 1989, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal, in awarding compensation to the respondents – plaintiffs, on account of death of their son due to electrocution. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit claiming compensation of Rs.1,18,000/- together with future interest @ 18% per annum, from the defendants on account of death of plaintiffs’ son, Sri Mohd. Maibelli @ Mahaboob Ali. Plaintiff No.1 is the father and plaintiff No.2 is the mother of the deceased, who met with a fatal accident at the field of Sri Vakkala Gattaiah due to electrical shock and died on the spot on 15.12.1986 at 11.00 a.m., at Narayanagiri village of Dharmasagar Revenue Mandal. On the date of the accident, the deceased was employed as agricultural labourer by Sri Vakkala Gattaiah, land owner and that at the time when the deceased was irrigating the maize crop in the filed, he took a spade which was near a stay wire and he got electrocuted and died on the spot. The said accident was noticed by the adjacent cultivators and the matter was reported to the Police, who rushed to the spot, conducted a panchnama and a case in Crime No.164 of 1986 was registered, on the file of Police Station, Madikonda. The electrical pole, which was installed on the spot, was supported by a stay wire and it was without proper porcelain cup (Guy- insulator) and the stay wire became alive, as the current passed from phase wire to stay wire and as the defendants failed to instal four over headlines for the three phase current. The overhead distribution lines are purported to supply three phase current to various consumers (irrigation wells etc.,). In such case, there ought to have been one neutral wire besides the three distribution lines. Therefore, there was negligence on the part of the defendants in laying distribution lines and that the installation of electrical equipments was improper and defective, which resulted in the accident due to which the plaintiffs’ son died. The defendants officials on coming to know of the accident, reached the spot, inspected the stay pole and the wire and got rectified hastily the aforesaid defective. Despite the negligence of the defendants, they did not pay any compensation of whatsoever to the plaintiffs either on the initiative of the defendants or on the claims made by the plaintiffs, who are the sole heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. As the defendants were delaying and evading to pay compensation, plaintiffs issued a suit notice on 25.5.1987 to the defendants and in spite of receipt of notice, the defendants did not give any reply. The plaintiffs suffered shock, mental pain and undesirable grief on the death of their grown up son. The deceased was an agricultural labourer and on average his earnings were Rs.20/- per day and even if taking a minimum of Rs.15/- per day, as his daily income, his monthly earnings would come to Rs.450/-. He was also hale and healthy and but for the fatal accident, he would have lived upto the age of 70 or 75 years. Taking his age, earning capacity, aptitude and interest to learn vocational trades, his earnings in future would be more bright. He was making over his earnings wholly to his parents ie., the plaintiffs. Even if Rs.150/- per month was deducted towards his personal expenditure for his maintenance and upkeep, the loss of dependency to the family was not less than Rs.300/- per month. There is a loss of not less than thirty (30) years of future earning life of the deceased and the loss of the dependency to the plaintiffs, on account of death of their son, would thus come to Rs.1,08,000/-. The plaintiffs also claimed Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental shock, pain and agony which they suffered and continue to suffer on account of death of their son. Hence, defendant No.1 and its officials – defendants 2 to 4 are jointly and specifically liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs. The fourth defendant filed a written statement and defendants 1 to 3 filed a memo adopting the written statement of D.4. In the written statement, the defendants admitted that Mahaboob Ali died on 15.12.1986 in Narayanagiri village due to electric shock and the said Mahaboob Ali was working as agricultural labourer under land-owner Vakkala Gattaiah. It is also further stated that after the accident, during inspection of the spot it was found that the insulation of service laid to agricultural service connection - SC.No.160 got peeled off and ultimately stay wire was energized through a neutral wire and that the deceased negligently came in contact with the energized stay wire, while irrigating the crop in the field, and died. It is an elementary rule that people should avoid contact with electrical wires. It is also averred that agricultural labourer is most insecure and unregulated profession and purely seasonal in nature. The calculation and application of multiplier is purely imaginary and speculative. The claim of Rs.10,000/- for mental shock is not sustainable. The total claim of Rs.1,18,000/- is speculative and inflated. There is no justifiable cause of action against the defendants - Board for tortuous liability. The consumer is responsible for safe maintenance of electrical equipment in his custody. It is also averred that the plaintiffs should have proceeded against the consumer for compensation, as the deceased was working under the employment of V.Gattaiah. On the above pleadings, the Court below has framed the following issues: 1. “Whether the deceased Mahaboob Ali Alid died due to electric shock on 15.12.1986 on account of negligence of the deceased? 2. Whether the defendants have not provided gay insulator at S.C.No.160? 3. Whether the consumer of S.C.No.160 is necessary party, and if so, when the suit fails? 4. What was the income in cause of the deceased as on the date of accident? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,18,000/- as prayed for? 6. To what relief?” On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. Ex.A.1 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 25.5.1987. Exs.A.2 to A.5 are the postal acknowledgments, dated 25.5.1987. Ex.A.6, dated 15.12.1986, is the Xerox copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.164 of 1986 of Madikonda Police Station. Ex.A.7, dated 15.12.1986, is the Xerox copy of panchnama conducted by Station House Officer, Madikonda Police Station. Ex.A.8, dated 15.12.986, is the Xerox copy of postmortem report. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. The Court below, on appreciation of the evidence on record, held in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and decreed the suit with costs observing that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.54,000/- from the defendants with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of decree. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants – defendants contends that the Court below has erred in disbelieving the evidence of D.W.1 - the Assistant Divisional Engineer, who testified that the accident occurred as a result of improper maintenance of the service wire of S.C.No.160. The Court below has also erred in rejecting the evidence of D.W.1 on the grounds such as failure of D.W.1 to give a notice in writing to the owner of S.C.No.160 to replace the service wire, non-filing of the inspection report prepared by D.W.1 etc. The Court below while giving undue importance to certain aspects like failure to give reply notice by the defendants, disbelieved their version. It is also stated that the Court below ought not to have relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who are interested witnesses, while brushing aside the evidence of D.W.1, a responsible Officer of the defendants. Further, the multiplier applied by the Court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is incorrect and the Court below has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.54,000/- towards the compensation and the same is highly disproportionate to the actual entitlement. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents – plaintiffs that the deceased was employed as agricultural labourer by Vakkala Gattaiah and while the deceased was irrigating the maize crop in the field, he took a spade which was near a stay wire and he got electrocuted and died on the spot. Because of negligence of the respondents in defective installation of wires and failure to fix gay insulator in between each stay wire, the fatal accident occurred. The deceased was young in age, hale and healthy, that he was working as agricultural labourer, and that he had aptitude and interest to learn vocational trades and hence his earnings in future would be more bright. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking compensation of Rs.1,18,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the petition, for the death of their son. They also claimed Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental shock, pain and agony they suffered due to death of their son. The Court below, after going through the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the counsel appeared for the plaintiffs and the defendants, awarded a meager compensation of Rs.54,000/- with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of decree, which can neither said to be excessive nor arbitrary, compared to the damage caused to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents - plaintiffs sought for dismissal of the appeal. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Court below had failed to consider the grounds raised by the defendants and whether the Court below had erred in awarding the compensation to the plaintiffs? There is no dispute that son of the plaintiffs, Sri Mohd. Maibelli alias Mahaboob Ali, was died on 15.12.1986 due to electrocution. The accident was reported to Police Station, Madikonda, where a case in Crime No.164 of 1986 was registered. The case of respondents - plaintiffs is that their son while irrigating the maize crop in the fields of V.Gattaiah, came in contact with a stay electrical wire as a result of which their son died was electrocuted and died on the spot. The said accident was occurred only because of negligence on the part of the appellants – defendants in installation and fixation of power distribution lines and hence they are liable to pay compensation. The case of the appellants – defendants is that after the accident, on inspection, it was found that the insulation of service laid to agricultural service connection -S.C. No.160 got peeled off resulting in the stay wire got energized and the deceased while irrigating the crop, negligently came in contact with the energized stay wire and died on the spot. The appellants – defendants had also raised a ground that the consumer of the service connection is responsible for safe maintenance of electrical equipment in his custody and the plaintiffs should have proceeded against the consumer for compensation. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to look into the evidence adduced. First plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he is none other than the father of the deceased. According to him, there was no guy insulator to the stay wire due to which electricity passed through the stay wire and caused the accident when the deceased came in contact with the stay wire. On 25.5.1987 he has issued a legal notice to the defendants, but there was no reply from the defendants. P.W.2, a resident of the village, is one of the inquest panchayatdars. His evidence shows that there were only three overhead lines instead of four wires in the land of said V. Gattaiah and the stay wire from the pole bar was without guy insulator and hence the electricity was passed on through the stay wire and ultimately resulted in death of the deceased. Ex.A.7 is the inquest panchanama conducted by the Station House Officer, Madikonda Police Station. P.W.3 is son of V. Gattaiah. Said Gattaiah died during the pendency of the suit. Gattaiah employed the deceased for agricultural work in the field of V.Gattaiah. According to P.W.3, son of plaintiffs died due to electrocution and at that time the deceased was irrigating maize crop in the filed of Gattaiah. P.W.3, while stating the cause of the accident on the same lines as was given by P.Ws.1 and 2, further stated that after the occurrence of the accident, the defendants officials came to the spot and rectified the defects after inspection. On behalf of the defendants, the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation) was examined as D.W.1, but no documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf. According to D.W.1 service holder of concerned S.C. No.160 is one Janardhan Reddy whereas Gattaiah, who employed the deceased for agricultural work in his field, is the owner of S.C. No.246. According to the evidence of D.W.1, he was not the official at the time of insulation of the concerned electrical lines. From the evidence available on record, it is evident that the deceased was admittedly employed by one V. Gattaiah for his agricultural work and while the deceased was irrigating the maize crop in the field, he took a spade which was near a stay wire, which resultantly caused electrocution to the deceased and he died on the spot. The main reason for the accident, according to the plaintiffs, was that the electrical pole which was installed on the spot was supported by the stay wire which was without porcelain (guy insulator) and became alive as current passed from phase wire to stay wire and that the defendants failed to instal four overhead lines for the three-phase current. After the accident, the defendants’ officials came to the spot and rectified the defective and improper laying of overhead lines and stay wires. Though a report is said to be prepared and submitted by D.W.1 with regard to the accident, it is to be noticed that the defendants have not placed the same before the Court, nor any documentary evidence was adduced by them in support of their case that there was no negligence on their part in installing and maintaining the electrical equipment. According to the evidence of D.W.1, the accident took place at the well of V. Gattaiah having service connection S.C.No.246 and at the time of inspection he observed the service wire connection S.C.No.160 of Narayanagiri Village belong to one Karra Janardhan Reddy was peeled off touching the cross arm of the pole and as a result there was transmission of power through which the stay wire became alive. The stay wire is connected to the pole of S.C. No.246. D.W.1 admitted in his evidence that no notice was given to Janardhan Reddy, who owned S.C. No.160, directing him to replace the peeled service wire, but he orally instructed Janardhan Reddy to replace his service wire. If there is any lapse on the part of the consumers of power, the defendants have to issue necessary notice to the concerned consumer and shall take necessary action. The defendants cannot contend that it is the duty of the consumer to maintain the service wire and there is no negligence on their part. Hence, it can be said that there is negligence on the part of the defendants, which has resulted in the accident causing death of the son of the plaintiffs. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, it is to be noted that the deceased was an agricultural coolie. It is not in dispute that the deceased is a young unmarried man. Even as per the F.I.R., which is marked as Ex.A.6, the deceased is 19 years old. Therefore, his earnings can be can be taken as Rs.15/- per day on average, which comes to Rs.450/- per month. However, in view of the fact that the deceased was unmarried, the Court below estimated the loss of earnings suffered by the parents of the deceased due to the death of their son as Rs.150/- per month and thus held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.54,000/- from the defendants with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of decree. The Court below has considered all the grounds raised by the appellants-defendants and has given cogent reasons in coming to the conclusion and awarding the compensation. I therefore do not find any reason to interfere with impugned the order of the Court below. Therefore the appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 14th September, 2010 PNV ------xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the grounds raised by the appellants having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, which is sustainable in law? 2) Whether the Court below had failed to consider the grounds raised by the appellants herein improperly while dealing with the matter and while considering the issues framed in the suit? For the purpose of considering these grounds it is necessary to look into the facts of the case in brief. ----------- The case of the defendant was that the death was caused due to the negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the defendants are not liable to pay the compensation. The appropriate issues were framed as referred to above by the Court below. PW.1 is no other than the first plaintiff who is the father of the deceased. He stated that there was no guy insulator to the stay wire due to which electricity passed through the stay wire and caused the accident when Mahaboob Ali came in contact with the stay wire. He further stated that instead of four wires there were only three head wires and there was no nutral wire. On 25.5.1987 he got issued legal notice to defendants 1 to 4. The legal notice is marked as Ex.A.1, in that notice all the material averments in the plaint are made. Exs.A.2 to A.5 are the acknowledgments of Ex.A.1 by D.1 to D.4. Indisputably, they did not give any reply notice. It is also stated that D.W.1 also did not say that they have not received Ex.A.1 notice. PW.2 is also the resident of the same village. He also speaks to the electrocution of the deceased Mahaboob Alin on 15.12.1986, according to him there were only three over head lines instead of four wires in the land of V.Gattaiah, and the stay wire from the pole bar was without guy insulator and for the above reasons electricity passed on through the stay wire. He is also one of the inquest panchyathdars. The inquest panchnama was marked as Ex.A.7. PW.3 is the son of V.Gattaiah (the land owner). According to him, his father V.Gattaiah is no more. His testimony is that the deceased died due to the electrocution and that at that time the deceased was irrigating maize crop in his field. Having been engaged by his father on daily wages. He further stated that the defendants have not insulated any guy insulator and there were only 3 head lines wires installed instead of four head lines and therefore, electricity passed on to the stay wire. He further stated that the defendant officials rectified the defects after inspection. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation) of the defendant Electricity Board. His testimony was that he came to know of the accident on the same day of occurrence in the night through a Lineman by name Elisha and had been to the scene of accident on the next day morning. According to him electrocution took place at the well of V.Gattaiah having service connection 246 of Narayanagiri village. At the time of inspection he observed the service wire connection of 160 of Narayanagiri village belonging to one Karra Janardhan Reddy was peeled off and touching the cross arm of the pole and as a result there was transmission of electrical energy through the natural wire and so natural wire became alive wire due to which stay wire became live. Further statement was that the stay wire is connected to the pole of S.C.No.246 belonging to V.Gattaiah and that one of the stay wires connecting the pole was having guy insulator and that there was no negligence on the part of the Department and the current passed to the stay wire due to the peeling of service wire of Karra Janardhan Reddy. After inspection, he submitted a report to the Department but indisputably the said report is not filed. He admitted that in the cross-examination he has not given any written notice to the said Janardhan Reddy who owned service No.160 directing him to replace the peeled of service wire. Basing on the evidence, the Court below held in first and second issues that the defendant failed to prove that the stay wire was electrocuted due to the service wire of one Janardhan Reddy coming into contact with the corss-bar. Further they have also failed to prove that there were four head wires and that guy insulator was fixed. It is not the case of the defendant that the absence of the above two are not defective in installation and even if they are there the electrocution of stay wife cannot be avoided. The electrocution of stay wife is the result of negligence of the defendants. According, the issues are in favour of the plaintiff. As far as the third issue is concerned, the Court below held that no where in the written statement it is contended that service holder of S.C.No.160 is a necessary party. According to D.W.1 the service holder of 160 is one Janardhan Reddy and Gattaiah is the owner of S.C.No.246. Therefore, this issue is retardant and therefore left undecided. Issue Nos.4 and 5 are held that at the time of accident, deceased was only an unmarried person. It cannot be expected that if he remains unmarried and his parents continue to receive all the income earned by the deceased. But as son the deceased is bound to maintain his parents even if he is married. So the loss plaintiff suffered as parents of the deceased due to the death of the deceased can only be Rs.150/- per month. If that amount is multiplied for 30 years it comes to Rs.150/- X 12 (year) X 30 (years) is equal to a total sum of Rs.54,000/-. In view of the same, the Court below gave a finding on issue No.6 that the suit was decreed and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.54,000/- with future interest @ 12% per annum from the defendants from the date of decree. Therefore, in view of the said findings, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of D.W.1 was not considered is not correct. Admittedly D.W.1 consequent to the information given to him about the incident on the next day he proceeded to the site and found that the deceased died due to the electrocution and to that extent he prepared a report. But he do not support in the Court below. The fact remains that deceased died due to the electrocution. The Court below had considered the evidence of D.W.1 and came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to the electrocution, which was resulted due to the negligence on the part of the Department and no evidence was adduced on behalf of defendant No.1 except the evidence by examining D.W.1 who is Assistant Engineer. On behalf of the plaintiff, they examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. Considering the evidence on record, the Court