IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of care owed by the Electricity Board in hazardous activities and the application of the multiplier method for determining the quantum of compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the decree and Judgment dtd. 7/4/2014 in O.S. No.30 of 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short, 'the trial court'). Respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit, who filed the suit in O.S.No.30 of 2010 seeking compensation of Rs.14,79,200.00 for the death of Dasari Nagendra Rao (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the deceased'), who died due to electrocution.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:

(a) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the mother and daughter of the deceased. The deceased was eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work. His wife had passed away earlier and he had not been remarried since then. The well being of the deceased's daughter i.e., the 2nd plaintiff has been looked after by the 1st plaintiff alone. (b) On 28/11/2004 around 10.30 AM, while the deceased was in the process of installing a bulb in the holder, when he attempted to turn off the main electrical switch, unexpectedly, an electrical current surged from the power line to the main switch in his house, as a result, the deceased suffered an electric shock causing several burns to his hands. In the immediate aftermath, Dasari Sreenivasulu, the deceased's brother, arrived and struck the deceased with a slipper. The deceased fell unconscious. While the deceased was shifting to the hospital, he passed away on the way.

(c) Immediately after the incident, the deceased's brother reported it to the Kuchipudi police station. The police registered the report as a case in Cr.No.97 of 2004 under Sec. 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). They held an inquest on the deceased's body, and subsequently sent the body for a postmortem examination. The postmortem report confirms that the deceased had died as a result of electric shock from contact with the live electric wire. The tragic and untimely death occurred due to the negligence and tortuous actions of the defendants' employees.

(d) The plaintiffs initiated a legal action by sending a registered notice to all the defendants demanding them to pay Rs.8,00,000.00. All the defendants received the notice and responded with a reply notice. In their reply, the defendants made baseless and groundless allegations that lacked merit or substance.

4. Defendants 4 and 5 adopted the written statement of defendants 1 to 3, wherein they contended that the standard procedure that the service wire carrying power from the pole will be connected in the first instance directly to the meter. The connections from the meter are linked to the main switch, and from there they extended to the houses internal wiring. The consumers are responsible for arranging wiring connections within their homes, with the involvement of a licensed electrician, and at their own expenses. Only upon obtaining the wiring certificate, electrical services will be released. The electricity department used to inspect the consumers' meters functioning. The alleged incident did not result from any negligence on the part of the electricity department. The defendants believe that the deceased's brother and other relatives manipulated records to unjustly and unlawfully seek compensation by filing this suit. In the registered notice, the deceased's occupation is mentioned as a lorry driver, but in the plaint, it is described as Agricultural coolie worker. In Col.No.7 of the Inquest report, the panchayatdars noted burn injuries on the joint of the right index and middle fingers and also the left index finger joint, stomach and left back. It discloses that the deceased's relatives might have caused those injuries on the dead body after his death, possibly as part of a pre-mediated plan to seek compensation from the electrical department.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the tria