IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Electricity providers have a strict liability to maintain safety standards, and failure to do so resulting in harm establishes negligence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2011 passed in A.S.No.33 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge at Warangal whereby the judgment of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal vide judgment in O.S.No.324 of 2006, dated 23.06.2008 was set aside.

2. The plaintiffs were successful before the trial Court in the suit instituted for compensation. The trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. However, the said judgment and decree was set aside by the District Judge in first appeal, preferred by the defendants herein.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after will be referred as arrayed in the trial Court in the Suit.

4. The plaintiffs filed suit seeking compensation from the defendants on the ground that the first plaintiff’s husband namely Mahender died due to electrocution on account of the negligence and carelessness of the defendants/electricity department in operating their activities and management of power supply. The said Mahender died due to electric shock when the electrical wire on the pole got snapped and fell on the pandal in front of the house. Deceased was adjusting the pandal (pandiri) in front of his grandmother’s house and on account of the snapped wire, electricity passed through the pandal, resulting in electrocution of the deceased.

5. Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, basing on the pleadings, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- from the defendants towards compensation as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6. Learned trial Judge passed judgment on 23.06.2008 in O.S.No.324 of 2006 finding that the defendants did not choose to argue the matter nor showed interest in the suit. However, basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents Exs.A1 to A3 which are the FIR, inquest report and postmortem report, the Court found that department was negligent and defendants failed to take precaution to detect the snapped wire. The deceased Mahender, who did not notice the snapped wire, came into contact with the live wire and died due to electrocution. In the said circumstances, the defendants were negligent and accordingly, Rs.4.00 lakhs compensation was directed to be paid.

7. The defendants approached the District Court and filed A.S.No.33 of 2009. The appellate Court on the basis of the pleadings, framed the point for consideration:

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit amount, as prayed for, and whether there was negligence on the part of the defendants resulting in the death of the deceased Mahender and to what relief?”

8. Learned appellate Judge relied on the cross-examination of P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased. In her cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that she was informed that electric wire was snapped and passing on above the pandal (pandiri). When the pandal required some repairs, while attending repairs, the deceased came into contact with the electric wire and died. Learned Judge further found that the deceased came into contact with live wire, which was passing above the pandal and it is not the case that the electric wire got snapped and electricity department failed to take any steps to repair or to cut off power supply to protect the lives of the innocent people. Since the wire was not snapped and the deceased came into contact with the live wire, which was passing above the pandal, the question of attributing negligence on part of the defendants does not arise.

9. Further, the learned Appellate Judge found that the incident happened on 13.08.2005 and the matter was reported on 14.08.2005. P.W.2, who was examined before the Court below was not the witness during the inquest proceedings. The only eye witness who was the grandmother was not examined. Though, it was mentioned in the FIR that the electric wire got snapped, the same cannot be considered in the back ground of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents. Accordingly, the appellate Court foun