The main legal point established is that just compensation should be awarded based on the actual income sources of the deceased and the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

1. This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.17 of 2001 dated 15.04.2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

2. The plaintiffs, before the trial Court, are the appellants. The respondents herein are the defendants.

3. The appellants instituted the suit against respondents for granting compensation of Rs.3,64,392/- for the death of one Bendi Ramana.

4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings.

5. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs in brief in the plaint was as follows:

(i) 1st appellant is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are mothers and appellant Nos.4 and 5 are daughter and son of one Bendi Ramana (hereinafter called as “the deceased”).

(ii) On 23.10.1999 at 08.30 A.M., the deceased along with N.Venkatarao and others went to Singuru village for cutting gross to their cattle in sugarcane lands. While the deceased was cutting the gross in the sugarcane garden, the electric wires at the 2nd and 8th poles from the electrical transformer of Singuru village, which is L.T. wire, have fallen on the sugarcane crop at the height of 1½ meter from the ground. Unfortunately, the deceased came into contact with the said electrical wire and died on the spot.

(iii) The incident was reported to the 1st respondent, and he visited the spot along with police. The deceased died due to negligence of the electrical department staff. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the appellants, who are totally depending on the earnings of the deceased, suffered great loss and the respondents are liable to pay compensation for their negligence. The appellants got issued a notice dated 27.09.2000 to the respondent’s claiming compensation and the same was received by them, but not responded. Hence, the suit.

6. The respondent No.3 denying all the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement, which was adopted by the other respondents by filing memo before the trial Court, as follows:

(i) The L.T.3 phase four-line wire was laid from Singuru distribution transformer SS.2 to certain agricultural lands across the land of one Pydi Ramulu, wherein a sugarcane crop was existing. The L.T. line was intact during the pre-monsoon inspection conducted.

(ii) On 23.10.1999 at about 02.00 P.M., the Sarpanch of Singuru Village came to the Section Office, Ponduru and informed that the deceased found dead in the sugarcane field by touching the L.T.line (2 wires). Then the Section Officer went to the fields along with police and found that out of three phases, two phase wires were fallen on the ground, on which the dead body was lying. Singuru Distribution is the unman distribution and no report is received from anybody about snapping of the conductor. The department is no way responsible for the accident, because the deceased himself touched the snapped conductor, which is clearly visible as it is morning hours at 10.00 A.M.

(iii) The Section Officer several times tried to contact the dependents of the deceased for giving nominal compensation as per the Department Rules on production of legal heir certificate, but nobody turned up. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for compensation. There is no negligence on the part of the respondents and the amount claimed is very excessive. Hence, the suit is liable for dismissal.

7. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether Bendi Ramana died by electrocution due to the negligent maintenance of electrical lines?

2. If so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation in terms of money and at what rate? and

3. To what relief?”

8. At the trial, on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1