THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY SECOND APPEAL No.115 OF 2011 DATED:25.03.2011 Between: The Superintending Engineer, A.P.Transco, Adilabad & 3 others. .... PETITIONERS And Sura Raju Bai & 5 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 03.02.2007, in A.S.No.34 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, wherein the said appeal filed by the appellants herein, was dismissed and the judgment and decree, dated 16.12.2005, in O.S.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, granting compensation of Rs.1,50,000/, were confirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents herein filed the suit for grant of compensation for the death of the deceased-Sura Balaiah, father of the respondents 1 to 5, due to coming into contact with live electricity wires, which were hanging loose in the fields of Veerapuram, Gandla Rajaiah, situate at Veegaon village. According to the plaintiffs, the death of the deceased is due to the electric fusion on the spot occurred owing to the negligence in the matter of maintenance of the electricity supply lines. Plaintiffs further pleaded that on account of the untimely death of the deceased, his entire family became destitute. Appellants- defendants filed written statement contending that there was no negligence on the part of the authorities in maintenance of the electricity supply lines. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased Sura Balaiah died due to the negligent attitude of the defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation? 3. To what relief? 4. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the suit was decreed awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2006. By the impugned judgment, dated 03.02.2007, the said appeal was also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal. 6. A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below would disclose that what was the issue was purely a question of fact covered by issue No.1 as to whether the deceased died due to the negligent attitude of the defendants in the matter of maintenance of electricity supply wires. The evidence on record would clearly establish that the deceased died due to electric fusion owing to his coming into contact with live electricity wires inadvertently as the electricity wires are loosely hanging below the standard height. The records also show that the electricity supply wires were laid about twenty years ago and the defendants have not established that they were being properly maintained and periodically checked. A register is admittedly maintained regarding the checking of the lines but the same was not produced before the Court. The trial Court is therefore justified in drawing adverse inference against the defendants for non-production of the said register. 7. It cannot for a moment be disputed that it is the bounden duty of the appellants-defendants to properly maintain the electricity supply lines in the manner specified and in accordance with the information specified by their own manual. The very fact that the electricity supply wires were found to be hanging loose and at such a low level as to come into contact with the human beings walking across inadvertently would itself reflect on the poor maintenance of the supply wires. 8. The Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding on the question of fact that the death of the deceased occurred only due to the electric fusion occurred because of the negligent manner in which the electricity supply lines were maintained by the department. The responsibility squarely lies on the department for improper maintenance of the supply lines and also to pay the compensation to the affected persons in the event of any untoward happening that occurs on account of the improper maintenance of the supply lines. The Courts below have rightly held that the appellants-defendants are liable for payment of compensation to the plaintiffs, who are the kith and kin of the deceased. The quantum of compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, cannot also be termed as excessive or unreasonable. The concurrent finding on the question of fact recorded by the Courts below on proper appreciation of the evidence on record does not call for any interference by this Court. There is no question of law muchless the substantial question of law involved in the matter. There are absolutely no merits in the Second Appeal. 9. Accordingly, Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 25th March, 2011. Tsy