The primary liability to compensate the sufferer of electrocution is that of the supplier of the electric energy, and enterprises engaged in hazardous activities are strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those affected by accidents.

JUDGMENT :

The respondents/claimants herein are the dependants of the deceased – Martha Linga Reddy, and he died due to electrocution. Claiming compensation, respondents filed O.S.No.61 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda against the Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., (C.P.D.C.) Nalgonda, represented by its Officials. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.2003, the trial court decreed the suit and granted compensation. Assailing the same, the C.P.D.C./defendants in the suit filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit.

3. The plaint averments in brief are that one Martha Linga Reddy, was working as Supervisor on the poclainer owned by one Shekkhar Reddy. On 17.05.2001at about 3.30 am, when the said Martha Linga Reddy was going on scooter to Pangal village to call on the contractor, and that when he reached the fields of Balija-Pitchaiah, a current wire fell from the pole and he died on the spot due to electric shock. Police, Nalgonda- II Town registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The claimants, who are his wife, children, parents and unmarried sister of the deceased filed the present suit claiming compensation. Their case is that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month by working as supervisor on the poclainer, and hence claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and future interest at 18% per annum.

4. The defendants filed written statement and denied the claim of the claimants. The defendants while not disputing that the deceased died due to electrocution, stated that there was heavy wind and rain on the intervening night of 16/17.5.2001 and on account of the same, the neutral conductor between the two polies situated at Balija-Pitchaiah lands, snapped, and fell on the ground, and that the deceased – Linga Reddy, who was going on scooter without light, contacted electric wire, and got electrocuted. Their case is that there is no negligence on their part. However, they admitted that the department has offered ex – gratia, but the claimants/plaintiffs have unnecessary approached the court. Therefore, sought to dismiss the suit.

5. Based on the rival contentions, the trial court framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the deceased Linga Reddy was earning Rs.10,000/-per month?

2. Whether the electrocution of deceased Linga Reddy was due to negligence and improper maintenance of power lines by defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation and if so to what amount?

4. To what relief?

6. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked.

7. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined, and no exhibits were marked.

8. Appreciating the entire evidence on record, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.2001 held that on the date of incident absolutely there is no evidence to show that there was wind and gale and that the defendants could not prove their case. The trial court held that there is negligence on the part of the defendants in maintaining the electric lines. Further taking the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month, and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, and by applying multiplier 16, granted compensation of Rs.2,71,656/- . Assailing the same, the respondents/C.P.D.C. Ltd., filed the present Appeal.

9. Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants submits that as per FIR , Ex.A-9, there was heavy gale and rain on the date of incident, due to which, the neutral conductor between the two polies situated at Balaji Pitchaiah land snapped and fell on the ground. The deceased who was going on scooter without light in the night, went and contacted the electric wire and got electrocuted. As such there is no negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants in maintaining the electric lines, and that the accident was occurred due to vis major only, i.e., by an irresistible force,