Whether

the

Appellate

Court

was

justified

in

dismissing the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that

the dish cable operators were not arrayed as parties and

that GESCOM was not responsible to ensure that illegal

- 3 -

cables were laid on its poles, is the substantial question of

law that arises for consideration in this second appeal.

The wife and children of Mallayya, filed a suit seeking

for compensation for the death of Mallayya. They stated

that on 18.05.2004, Mallayya on hearing someone scream

near his house noticed that one Basavaraj had come in

contact with electric wire in which electricity was flowing

and in order to save the said Basavaraj, he took a stick

and removed the wire and while doing so, the said wire fell

on his neck and as a result, he got electrocuted. They

contended that this accident occurred due to the

negligence on the part of the electricity utility provider i.e.,

KPTCL and GESCOM and they were therefore entitled for

compensation.

The Assistant Executive Engineer of GESCOM entered

appearance and filed a written statement, which was

adopted by the KPTCL and as well as by the Managing

Director of GESCOM. They contended that suit was bad for

non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., the cable operators

- 4 -

Manikreddy and Siddappa, since according to them, a

criminal case had been filed against the cable operators

and

they

were

therefore

necessary

parties.

They

contended that the service provider was not responsible

for paying compensation as there was no negligence

shown on their part. They also denied all the allegations

made in the claim petition.

The Trial Court on consideration of the issues and the

evidence, recorded a finding of fact that Mallayya in fact,

died due to electrocution and this was as a result of

negligence on the part of the service providers and

consequently, his wife and children were entitled for

compensation of `3,26,000/- along with interest at the

rate of 6% per annum.

5.

The service providers preferred an appeal. In the

appeal, the Appellate Court took the view that the cable

operators were required to be made parties and it also

came to the conclusion that it could not be expected for

the service providers, who were entrusting the task for

- 5 -

supply of electricity to various districts in Hyderabad

Karnataka area, to take care of each pole. It recorded a

finding that the snapping of the electricity wire was an

accident and this was because the dish cable had come

into contact with the electric wire and this indicated the

negligence on the part of the cable operators. The

Appellate Court accordingly reversed the judgment of the

Trial court and dismissed the suit.

6.

It cannot be denied that once the electricity poles are

erected for the supply of electricity, it becomes the

bounden duty of the service provider like GESCOM to

ensure that the electricity poles erected by it are not

misused by any person. The fact that electricity supplied

by the transmission wires in the electric poles have fatal

consequences cast a serious responsibility on GESCOM to

ensure that there is no misuse or abuse of the poles that

have been erected, by anybody. It is exact for this reason

that the authorities employ the services of hundred of

lineman and several other people to ensure that their

- 6 -

transmission lines are not misused or protected from

interference.

7.

The erection of an electric pole creates an implied

guarantee to the citizen that he would not come to harm

by the erection of the electric poles. If a cable operator is

allowed to draw his wires and allow thereby create a

possibility of an accident to occur, the entire responsibility

of the accident would have to fall up on the electricity

authorities and not on the cable operators. The electricity

authorities cannot shirk the responsibility by passing on

the blame to the cable operators, because it is the

fundamental duty of the electricity providers to ensure

that no cable wires are drawn on the electric poles