1. The defendants-APSEB authorities who have been aggrieved by the common judgment in O.S.Nos.696 and 1381 of 1993 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder compensation of Rs.80,000/- in O.S.No.696 of 1993 and Rs.1,24,000/- in O.S.No.1381 of 1993 was granted for the death of one J.Ramesh due to electrocution by a live electric wire, filed the instant appeal.

2. The deceased was aged 27 years and working as a Class IV employee in Postal Department at Narayanaguda. On 11.05.1992 at about 5 PM while the deceased and some others were waiting at bus stand Nampally near Telugu University, suddenly one electrical wire was snapped from electric pole and fell on the iron railing of Telugu University. The deceased and four other persons came in contact with the iron railing and were thus electrocuted and died instantaneously.

(a) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.696 of 1993 who are parents and plaintiff in O.S.No.1381 of 1993 who is the wife of deceased filed separate suits claiming damages of Rs.1 lakh and 3 lakhs respectively attributing negligence to electricity authorities which resulted in death of deceased. The fact of death of deceased due to electrocution was not denied by defendants but their prime line of defence was that the death was due to vis major (act of God). They contended that on 11.05.1992 due to sudden and heavy gale the LT conductor of the line snapped and fell on the iron grill of the compound of Telugu University at Nampally bus stand and the iron grill got energized and at that time the deceased came in contact with iron grill compound and met with instantaneous death and in the entire process there was no negligence on the part of defendant-Board. They pleaded that since the place at which the fatal accident took place was a VIP area where Telugu University and Lalitha Kala Toranam were located, the officials of the defendant-Board were inspecting the transformer and line frequently in order to maintain uninterrupted power supply and thus the question of their negligence did not arise. The defendants thus attributed the death to vis major and claimed it as beyond their control. They further pleaded that defendant-Board passed a resolution to pay ex gratia of Rs.5,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased persons involved in the accident.

(b) Having regard to the admitted fact that the deceased met with untimely death due to the snapping of live electric wire, the trial Court relying on the principle res ipso loquitur, observed that prima facie the negligence was on the part of the department and hence the onus was on the defendants to establish that they were vigilant and diligent and the act was purely vis major and out of their control.

(c) Then, the trial Court embarked upon to find out whether the defendants could successfully discharge their burden. It may be noted, the defendants examined DW1 Additional Divisional Engineer, APSEB and produced Exs.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 and B2 are newspaper information about the accident and Ex.B3 is the inspection report submitted by the departmental personnel regarding the accident. Having observed that DW1 was not an eye-witness to the incident and not a part of the inspection team, the trial Court found fault with the defendants for not examining one of the staff members who allegedly inspected the spot and held that the contents of Ex.B3 were not proved. DW1 is concerned, he claimed that it being a VIP locality, they would conduct checkups to the wires every month and during such periodical checkups, they had never come across any defect in the wires. He however admitted in the cross examination that they have no record showing that they have conducted periodical checkups. In view of his admission, the trial Court observed that the defendants for the reasons best known to them did not produce any record to establish their contention that they used to conduct periodical checkups and hence an adverse inference could be drawn against