JUDGMENT :

V.SRINIVAS, J.

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.104 of 2011 dated 01.05.2014 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District Judge at Kadapa.

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

3. The appellants instituted the suit against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.12,52,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

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). One Jambula Soma Sekhar Reddy (hereinafter called as “the deceased”) got installed an electrical motor in the land an extent of Ac.9.43 cents belongs to the appellants situated near Ragimanuthota and he cultivating the said land along with other family members.

ii). On 13.10.2008 at about 05.00 a.m., when the deceased went to the said fields for watering the garden and tried to switch on the starter of the motor, the aluminum wire which was given connection to the starter from the L.T. pole was cut and the wire fell on the chest of the deceased, resulted the deceased got electrocuted and died on the spot.

iii). It is the duty of the respondents to give connection to the starter from the L.T. pole, but they simply inserted the wire to save the cost, thereby, they are negligent in discharging their duties.

iv). Then the police registered a case in Cr.No.133 of 2008 of Pulivendula Police Station and got conducted postmortem to the dead body of the deceased.

v). By the date of incident, the deceased was aged about 34 years and he is the only bread winner in the family. Due to the untimely demise of the deceased, the appellants suffering from mental agony and unable maintain themselves.

vi). The appellants sent a notice, dated 19.02.2010 demanding the respondents to pay compensation, but they denied for the same by reply with false allegations. Hence, the suit.

6. The defendants denying the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement as follows:

i). The department has no knowledge about the death of the deceased and they have no information about the incident. The death of the deceased is at his own risk and there is liability only on the field owner. The deceased is not the consumer of the department or paying any consumption charges.

ii). On verification, immediately after the incident, by the defendant No.2, found that the consumer with his own funds purchased the aluminum wire at cheaper cost without the knowledge of the defendants and connected the same to the main pole. Due to sub- standard quality of wire, the same was cut, resulted the incident. Thereby, the death of the deceased is only due to self-negligence. Further, the suit filed by the plaintiffs after lapse of 2 ½ years is barred by limitation and it is not maintainable. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.

7. On these pleadings, the Trial Court settled the following issues and an additional issue for Trial:

“1.Whether the electric shock with which the deceased Soma Sekhar Reddy, died is due to the negligence of the defendants?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are the dependent legal heirs of the deceased Soma Sekhar Reddy?

3.Whether the plaintiffs suffered the damages to the extent of the suit claim due to the death of the deceased Soma Sekhar Reddy?

4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of Rs.12,52,000/- as prayed for? and

5.To what relief?” 

Additional Issue

Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is within time?

8. At the Trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.11 in support of their contentions. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1