Electricity providers have a high duty of care to maintain safe conditions; failure to do so results in presumed negligence and liability for damages.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. The Appellants/Appellants/Defendants filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') against the judgment and decree, dated 06.11.2002 passed in A.S.No.16 of 2000 on the file of learned Additional District Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram (for short, 'the 1^st Appellate Court'), partly reversing the judgment and decree, dated 30.10.1999 passed in O.S. No.9 of 1992 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bobbili (for short ‘the Trial Court’).

2. The parties to the Appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.9 of 1992.

3. Respondents are the Plaintiffs, who have filed the suit in O.S.No.9 of 1992, seeking a decree directing the Defendants to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum, as damages for the death of Gandreti Poleesu, caused by an electrical shock resulting from rash and negligent actions of the Defendants.

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

The Plaintiffs, poor residents of Golladi village, lost their son, Gandreti Poleesu, due to the Defendants' negligence. Poleesu, a healthy 15-year-old, worked as a cowherd, earning Rs.10/- daily. Defendants 2 and 3 installed an electric line across fields in the village, intended to power a bore-well with no motor or shed. The line was improperly maintained, with low-hanging wires that eventually touched the ground and were covered with grass. On 08.07.1991, while Poleesu was grazing cattle, he was fatally shocked by the live wire, which also killed a she-buffalo. The Defendants failed in their duty to inspect and repair the faulty line. Despite the wire being dangerously low, they did not take precautions, exposing the live wire. The Plaintiffs lost their son, who was the family's primary support and suffered severe emotional and financial hardship. The deceased had contributed Rs.250/- per month to the family. Had Poleesu lived, he would have supported the Plaintiffs till their lifetime. A postmortem confirmed the cause of death as electric shock. The Plaintiffs incurred Rs.3,000/- in funeral expenses and claim Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages, though they estimated a total loss of Rs.1,69,800/-. Despite requesting compensation from the Defendants, no payment was made. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the loss sustained by the Plaintiffs.

5. The 2^nd Defendant filed a written statement adopted by Defendants 1 and 3. In the written statement, the 2^nd Defendant acknowledged the occurrence of a non-departmental accident involving Gandreti Poleesu on 08.07.1991 at Golladi village agricultural fields. The Assistant Electrical Inspector, Visakhapatnam, and higher authorities submitted a detailed investigation report to the State Government. The Defendants' Board had laid electrical lines for an agricultural bore well at Girada Simhachalam, with the D.R.D.A. responsible for supplying the motor and accessories after installation. However, the motor and shed were not installed, and frequent thefts kept the lines idle. On 07.07.1991, a heavy gale and rain caused a PSC pole to lean, bringing the overhead conductors to within 5 feet of the ground. On 08.07.1991, while grazing cattle, Gandreti Satyam's umbrella touched the wires, electrocuting him. Gandreti Poleesu, along with a buffalo, also came into contact with the wires and was electrocuted. A blown fuse was found on the transformer. The accident was caused by a natural calamity, with no negligence attributed to the Defendants' Board. The 2^nd Defendant asserts that the Board is not liable for compensation, emphasizing that the compensation claim is excessive and unfounded. The 2^nd Defendant prays for the suit's dismissal with costs.

6. Based on the above pleadings in O.S.No.9 of 1992, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @