C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) ). THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants in this appeal. They are the legal representatives of one Saya Goud who tragically died on 17-6-1988 due to electrocution by coming into contact with a snapped live wire which was lying on the ground. The deceased was a toddy tapper aged 25 years at the time of his death. The death occurred while he was riding on his bicycle at about 9 A. M. on 17-6-1988. The plaintiffs are the wife, miner son and mother respectively of the deceased. They laid the suit against the a. P. State Electricity Board through its Chairman and the Divisional Engineer, electricity, (Operation), Nirmal, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- by way of damages and compensation for the death of the deceased. Out of it Rs. 2. 5 lakhs was claimed by way of compensation for the loss of earnings of the deceased and Rs. 25,000/- was claimed by way of special damages on account of loss of consortium and pain and suffering. The defendants were sought to be made liable on account of negligence and failure to take reasonable precautions like provision of wire mesh to prevent the snapped wire from falling on ground, automatic tripping of power supply in the event of wire snapping, lack of proper maintenance and regular checking to prevent wires from snapping due to poor stringing or ageing and failure to post a Helper in the village, etc.

( 2 ) ). In the written statement it was not disputed that the death occurred due to electrocution by coming into contact with the live wire. It was, however, pleaded that the wire snapped due to heavy rain and gale during the night i. e. , due to vis major but not on account of any negligence on the part of the defendants. It was further pleaded that according the Electricity Rules no wire mesh was required to be provided over a cart-track and there was no facility for automatic tripping in the case of low tension lines. It was also pleaded that a Helper was posted at a nearby village Sirgapur, but he did not receive any intimation about the snapping of the electric wire. The defendants also disputed the earnings of the deceased as mentioned by the plaintiffs and disputed their liability to pay any amount by way of compensation to the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) ON the above pleadings, after framing appropriate issues and after trial the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the electric wire snapped due to rain and gale for which the defendants were not responsible. It further held that the wire was not lying on the passage along which the deceased was passing but it fell on a fence by the side of the cart-track and the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as he went near the fence and came into contact with the live wire.

( 4 ) ). Sri Niranjan Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs- appellants, in a well prepared argument, has strongly assailed the judgment of the lower Court. He firstly contended that the Court below erred in placing the burden of proof on the plaintiffs ignoring the well known doctrine of Res ipsa Loquitur. He also argued that the Court below erred in drawing adverse inference against the plaintiffs for not examining any of the tappers who accompanied the deceased on that day. He further contended that the finding of the lower Court with regard to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is without any basis either in the pleadings or in evidence. He finally submitted that the principle adopted by the lower Court on the degree of care to be taken by the defendants is wholly incorrect. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the following decisions: k. S. E. B. vs. Kamalakshy Amma, Padma Behari Lal vs. Orissa Electricity Board, syed Akbar vs. State of Karnataka, S. Vedanta Charya vs. Highways Department of South Arcot, M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India Charan Lal Sahu vs. Union of India.

( 5 ) ). On the other hand, the learned Counsel for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document