Back
2026:APHC:15706 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI ****
SECOND APPEAL No.91 of 2020
11. S OUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, REP., BY ITS DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL, ENGINEER (OPERATION), VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
22. S OUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P., LIMITED,, REP., BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, TIRUPATHI.
...APPELLANT(S)
Versus SHAIK JAAN BEE, W/O LATE SIKINDER, AGED 58 YRS, D.NO. 1-92, KOTIKALAPUDI VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 07.03.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
33. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI SECOND APPEAL No.91 of 2020 % 07.03.2026 Second Appeal No.91 of 2020
1. S OUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, REP., BY ITS DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL, ENGINEER (OPERATION), VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2. S OUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P., LIMITED,, REP., BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, TIRUPATHI.
...APPELLANT(S)
Versus SHAIK JAAN BEE, W/O LATE SIKINDER, AGED 58 YRS, D.NO. 1-92, KOTIKALAPUDI VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT ! Counsel for Appellants : Sri Abdul Hameed, learned counsel representing Sri V.V. Satish Kumar, learned counsel ^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri Solomon Raju, learned counsel representing Sri Syed Ziauddin, learned counsel Gist : > Head Note : ? Cases referred :
1) 1984 ACJ 210 (Madras) 2) (2014) 0 Supreme 1022
3) AIR 1981 SC 1400
4) AIR 2002 SC 551
5) (2022) 20 SCC 199:2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273
6) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864 This Court made the following:
APHC010056662020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI SECOND APPEAL NO: 91/2020 Between:
1. S OUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, REP., BY ITS DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL, ENGINEER (OPERATION), VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2. S OUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P., LIMITED,, REP., BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, TIRUPATHI.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. S HAIK JAAN BEE, W/o Late Sikinder, Aged 58 yrs, D.No. 1-92, Kotikalapudi village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.
...RESPONDENT Appeal under section ___________ against orderspleased to set aside the decree and j adgment passed in A.S.No.44/2015, dt. 26-09-2019 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in which the judgement and decree passed in O.S. No. 76/2012 of the file of the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada was set aside and with costs and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Condone delay of 46 days in preferring this second appeal against judgment and decree made in A.S.No.44/2015 on the file of VII Additional District and Session Judge, Vijayawada dated 26-09-2019, in which judgment and decree passed in OS.No.76/2012 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada was confirmed including the execution in EP.No.7 of 2020, pending disposal of Second Appeal and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings vide judgment and decree made in A.S.No.44/2015 on the file of VII Additional District and Session Judge, Vijayawada dated 26-09-2019, in which judgment and decree passed in OS.No.76/2012 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada was confirmed including the execution in EP.No.7 of 2020, pending disposal of Second Appeal and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to treat the matter as urgent and post the matter before the concerned court tomorrow in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to expedite and fix an early date for hearing of the above SA.No.
91 of 2020 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SYED ZIAUDDIN Date on which order was reserved : 26.02.2026 Date on which order was pronounced : 07.03.2026 Date on which the judgment was uploaded : 09.03.2026 The Court made the following:
:JUDGMENT:
The defendants in the suit filed the above second appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2019 in A.S.No.44 of 2015 on the file of learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2014 in O.S.No.76 of 2012 on the file of learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred to as per their array in the suit O.S.No.76 of 2012.
3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.76 of 2012, claiming compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- due to the death of her husband on 21.05.2011 because of contact with live electricity supply wire at Kotikalapudi Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.
4. The averments in the plaint, in brief, are that the plaintiff’s husband, Shaik Sikinder, an agricultural labourer, went to the fields of Velgaleti Pothuraju at about 7:00 a.m. on the fateful day, to cut grass, and did not turn up. Since the plaintiff’s husband did not return, she went to the fields at about 10:30 a.m. and found her husband lying dorsally and dead due to electrocution. On hearing the cries of the plaintiff, the neighbours gathered at the spot. The junior lineman, B. Raju came to the spot and switched off the supply.
b) The plaintiff immediately informed the same to the Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam. Police registered a case in crime No.205 of 2011, for the offence punishable under Section 174 I.P.C. During the course of their investigation, an inquest was held, and thereafter postmortem was conducted. Postmortem report issued by the Government General Hospital reveals that the cause of death of the deceased was due to electrical shock.
c) Due to the negligence in the transformation and maintenance of live wires, a live wire had fallen in the fields and ultimately caused the sudden death of the deceased.
d) The deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased left the plaintiff and two unmarried daughters, behind him. Despite several requests, the defendants 1 and 2 failed to pay the compensation. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 16.07.2011, to the defendants and thereafter filed the suit.
5. A written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No.1. It was contended that there was a heavy gale and rain on the night of 20.05.2011 due to which the electric wire might have snapped/cut and fallen in the fields of Potharaju, and the deceased might have come into contact with it. There was no complaint or information regarding the snapping of the wire. After receiving the death information, the staff immediately rushed to the spot and rectified the same. The department maintains the electrical lines in good condition, and they are being checked regularly. The snapping of the wire was due to a heavy gale coupled with rain, which is an unforeseen circumstance, but not due to the lack of maintenance. The said act cannot be attributed to the department. The live wire is also thick, in black colour and visible from a distance of 10 to 15 feet. The plaintiff’s husband trespassed into the fields of Pothuraju, and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation. Eventually prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings, framed five issues. During the trial, the plaintiff herself was examined as PW1 and examined PW2. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, lineman G. Raju was examined as D.W.1. However, no documents were marked on their behalf.
7. The Trial Court framed a specific issue, on the defence of the defendant, regarding the plaintiff’s husband trespassing into the fields of Pothuraju, and held the issue against the defendants.
8. The trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 20.08.2014, dismissed the suit, concluding that the incident had taken place due to the act of God, for which the defendants are not liable and held that there is no negligence on the part of the defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff fil
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
