IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the application of the doctrine of strict liability in cases of hazardous activities, the method for computing compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, and the liability of the Electricity Board for negligence.

JUDGMENT

1. The unsuccessful appellants/plaintiffs filed an Appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), seeking enhancement of the damages awarded in the decree and Judgment dtd. 18/11/2010 in O.S. No.01 of 2004 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short, 'the trial court'). Appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit, who filed the suit in O.S.No.01 of 2004 seeking compensation of Rs.11, 00, 000.00 towards damages for the death of Gajjalla Chinna Naganna (hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased'), who died due to electrocution. The respondents are defendants in the said suit.

2. It is expedient to refer to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit to mitigate any potential confusion and have a more transparent comprehension of the case.

3. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

(a) The plaintiffs are indigent persons with no property except the wearing apparel shown in the plaint schedule. They lack resources to pay the Court fee. The deceased's parents are uncooperative and have been included as defendants 1 and 2.

(b) The deceased worked as a private electrician and often assisted G.Maddileti and G.Sunkaiah in electrical works under the A.P.Transco Authorities and also earning daily wages as needed. The defendants 3 and 4 assigned the work of line clearance for the Kampamalla line from Koilakuntla A.P.Power House to S.Azeem, an employee of A.P Transco Limited, Koilakunta (hereinafter be referred to as 'the department').

(c) On 23/7/2000, Azeem engaged the deceased, G.Maddileti and G.Sunkaiah of Revanur village to install a transformer on a daily wage basis. Around 01:00 PM, Azeem, without returning to the work site or verifying the progress of the work, carelessly and negligently instructed the Power House in Koilakuntla over the phone to resume electric power supply to the Kampamalla line. Following his instructions, the power supply was restored, but the deceased, who was still working on the transformer, was electrocuted and died instantly due to shock and burns. The Koilakuntla Police filed a case, Cr.No.53 of 2000, against Azeem for this incident. The sudden death of the deceased caused significant financial hardship to the plaintiffs, as he used to earn a daily wage of at least Rs.200.00 and supported his family with this income. If defendants 3 to 5 had fulfilled their duties responsibly, the deceased's tragic demise could have been prevented.

4. In the written statement, defendants 1 and 2 refuted the plaint averments. They contended that they are the deceased's parents and are also his legal representatives and are entitled to the compensation which may be awarded to the deceased's legal heirs. Accordingly, if any amount is awarded, they are entitled to a share in the awarded compensation.

5. The 6th defendant adopted the written statement filed by defendants 3 to 5, in which they denied the claims made in the plaint and contended that the suit was improper due to the absence of employee Azeem, who was supposedly the deceased's employer as per the date of employment mentioned in the plaint; according to the plaintiffs, the deceased was a worker employed by Azeem, and the accident occurred during his employment; in such a case, the plaintiffs should have filed a petition under the Workmen Compensation Act; the deceased was never employed by them or their authorized representative, Azeem; the alleged work of clearing the Kampamalla line from Koilakuntla A.P Power House, as stated in the plaint, was entirely false; the transformer at the site of the alleged accident had been installed long before, and the described work did not exist; upon receiving information about a non-departmental electrical accident on 23/7/2000, the 5th defendant filed a report with the Station House officer in Koilakuntla; subsequently, the plaintiffs allegedly i