IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that procedural defects should not defeat a just cause, emphasizing the importance of negligence in determining liability for damages.

JUDGMENT :

T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.

1. This Second Appeal was filed by the Appellants/Respondents under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') against the Judgment and decree, dated 16.10.2006 passed in AS No. 152 of 2006 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) reversing the Judgement and decree, dated 08.11.2005 passed in O.S. No. 37 of 2004 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru (for short ‘the trial ‘the trial Court’).

2. The Respondents/Appellants are the Plaintiffs, who initiated the suit in O.S.No.37 of 2004 for damages of Rs.3,00,000/- along with costs. The Appellants/Respondents are the Defendants in the said suit.

3. The parties to the Appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.37 of 2004.

4. In the plaint, it is averred that Gummadi Narayanarao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), the 1st Plaintiff's husband, the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs' father, and the 4th Plaintiff's son, tragically passed away on 14.08.2003 at the age of 48. The Station House Officer of Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station and his staff were cleaning their station premises. They planned to erect an iron pole for the National Flag hoisting the following day. They engaged the deceased as a labourer for this task. At approximately 4:30 PM on that day, while the iron pole was being lifted to be installed, it came into contact with high-voltage electrical lines, causing an electric shock that rendered the deceased unconscious. Despite the proximity of a public health centre, merely 20 yards away, the Defendants did not take the victim there or inform the Plaintiffs of the incident. Instead, they transported him in a jeep to the Government Headquarters Hospital in Eluru while keeping the situation secret from the Plaintiffs. At around 10:30 PM on the same day, the Defendants informed the Plaintiffs and handed over the deceased's body. The Plaintiffs reported the matter to the higher authorities in the Police Department seeking compensation, but there was no response. It is stated that the deceased was in good health and could have earned Rs.100/- per day as a labourer for at least the next ten years. Based on this, the Plaintiffs have calculated the compensation at Rs.3,00,000/-.

5. The 1st Defendant filed a written statement, which the 2nd Defendant adopted, refuted the plaint averments, contending that Gummadi Narayanarao was never hired as a coolie, as the police station had its staff for the required tasks, and no contract existed between the parties. The deceased, who was mentally unstable, accompanied villagers to the police station for an inquiry. During this time, as a constable was erecting an iron pole, the deceased suddenly rushed towards him, causing the pole to contact live electrical wires. While the constable, wearing shoes, suffered a minor shock, the deceased, barefoot, received a fatal shock.The Defendants immediately sought medical help, but as the local doctor was unavailable, they shifted the deceased to a hospital in Eluru, where he passed away en route. The Defendants requested dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.

6. Based on the above pleadings in O.S.No.37 of 2004, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

7. During the trial, P.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Conversely, on behalf of the Defendants, D.W.1 was examined, and no documents were marked.

8. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

9. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.37 of 2004, the Plaintiffs filed A.S.No.152 of 2006 before the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, had partly decreed the Appeal by its Judgment, dt.16.10.2006, for Rs.1,50,000/- with