IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 857 OF 2001 BETWEEN: The Superintending Engineer, (APSEB), A.P. TRANSCO, Operation, Kurnool and another. …APPELLANTS AND Smt Saidabi and others. …RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 857 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: The defendants in O.S.No. 41 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, are the appellants herein. 2. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the damages consequent of the death of the deceased Mahu Sab, aged 50 years, due to electric shock. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff is the wife and plaintiffs 2 to 8 are the children of the deceased Mahu Sab. On 18-08-1997 the deceased Mabu Sab went to his fields and came into contact with an electric live wire, which has fallen due to the negligence of the defendants and consequently, he died. The defendants failed to take proper care. A case was registered, the police were informed about the incident by the Village Officer and the plaintiffs lost dependency and love and affection of the deceased. They filed the suit for damages for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- due to the death of the deceased Mahu Sab. 4. The defendants filed a written statement, denying that there is rashness or negligence on the part of the defendants. According to the defendants, the 1st defendant has to take all the care and precaution in supervising the electric wire in their jurisdiction. There was no information about the snapping of the wire and falling in the fields of the deceased 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial court, for trial: 1) Whether there is negligence on the part of the defendants authorities resulting death of Mabu Saheb? 2) Whether plaintiffs 2 to 8 are not dependants on deceased M.Babu Saheb? 3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled compensation and if so, what is the quantum? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the plaintiffs PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the defendants DW.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 7. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. 8. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the deceased died due to the negligence of the defendants? 2) Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Court is excess? 9. POINTS: The fact that the deceased died due to the electric shock due to the fall of the live electric wire in the field of the deceased is not in dispute. Apart from it, the copy of the First Information Report Ex.A-1 and copy of the Post Mortem Examination Report Ex.A-2 and Inquest Report Ex.A-3, supported by the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, clearly establishes the cause of the death of the deceased being due to electrocution. In fact, the evidence of DW-1 also does not dispute the above fact. Further-more, an attempt was sought to be made during the arguments before the lower Court that the deceased also contributed for the negligence. Evidently, it is the exclusive duty of the department to maintain the live wires and in the month of August, there were said to be rains and also winds and there is every likelihood of fall of the live wires, the duty of the care is more on the Department. The mere fact that out of negligence, the deceased has touched the electric wire does not make his part as contributory for causing the incident. Therefore, it is quite clear that the death of the deceased was due to the failure of the Department in not properly checking and correcting the electric lines and also to see that no electric supply passes through the lines that have broken. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge after the appreciation of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and also the documents has rightly concluded that there was negligence on the part of the defendants and the cause of death was only because of the live electric wire. The theory of contributory was also rightly rejected by the lower Court. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is excessive. Evidently, the deceased was an agriculturist and there are about eight persons depended on him and he is said to be aged 50 years. Even in case of no fault liability under the Motor Vehicles Act for negligence, a minimum compensation of Rs.50,000/- is provided. But, in this case, the lower Court taking into consideration the age of the deceased and also the fact that the some of the children are to be grown up, has fixed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, which by any reason cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court does not call for any interference of this Court. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 01-03-2011. INL