( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is coming up for admission today.

( 2 ) SRI Ramachandra Reddy had lodged a caveat on behalf of R-1 in the appeal-cum-plaintiff in the suit.

( 3 ) SRI Ajay Kumar, standing counsel for a. P. TRANSCO had raised only one substantial question of law which is as hereunder: whether the judgment and decree made in O. S. No. 89 of 1998 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, as confirmed in A. S. No. 50 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kadapa can be said to be valid and binding on the Transmission Corporation of A. P. orthe A. P. Southern Power Distribution company Limited which came into existence subsequent to the accident in question?

( 4 ) ALL other questions which had been canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant are ancillary or incidental questions.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel would maintain that the suit was instituted as indigent person in O. P. No. 51 of 1997 which was numbered as O. S. No. 89 of 1998 for recovery of damages. The counsel would maintain that inasmuch as the present appellant who is prosecuting the second appeal was not in existence at all either on the date of accident or on the date of institution of the suit and the same came into existence long thereafter, the present appellant is not bound by the liabilities under such decrees. An attempt was made to touch the other factual aspects inclusive of quantum of compensation which had been awarded by the courts below.

( 6 ) SRI M. N. Narsimha Reddy, representing sri Ramachandra Reddy, the counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would submit that such a contention cannot be raised by the appellant especially in the light of the fact that the appeal A. S. No. 50 of 2004 itself was filed by the Superintending Engineer (Operation), apseb, Kadapa. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to the Andhra pradesh Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 1999 and would maintain that in the light of rule 2 (j) under definitions, the same is inclusive of the pending suit. The learned counsel also had drawn attention of this court to Section 131 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003 and on the strength of these provisions, the learned counsel would maintain that the present appellant being the successor in interest is also liable for all the liabilities and the appellant cannot escape the liability under the present decree raising such a ground especially in the light of fact that the said apseb alone had preferred the appeal even before the first appellate court. The learned counsel also had taken this court through the other findings which had been recorded by both the courts below and would submit that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the quantum of compensation which had been awarded also is just and reasonable.

( 7 ) HEARD the counsel.

( 8 ) THE Superintending Engineer, (Operation), A. P. Southern Power Distribution company Limited, Kadapa, is the present appellant. There cannot be any serious doubt or controversy that the suit O. S. No. 89 of 1989 as indigent person in O. P. No. 51 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, kadapa, was instituted at the time when the said company was not in existence. As already referred to supra it is successor in interest. The suit was instituted claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the ground that on 26-3-1997 at about 2. 30 p. m. when he was rearing sheep and when he approached the land near Railway gate a service live wire hanging down near the land at the height of 4 or 5 feet touched him as a result of which he had received shock and he was taken to hospital and got treatment. Several other aspects also had been averred and ultimately since the same happened due to gross negligence on the part of the defendants 1 and 2, the APSEB and the Superintending engineer (Operation) APSEB, Kadapa compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000 had been claimed

( 9 ) THE second defendant filed written statement denying the allegations

Click Here to Read the rest of this document