Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 21454
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
G. Radha Rani, J
The Chairman and Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
Marru Sudhakar Rao – Respondent
SECOND APPEAL No.1228 of 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.Nikitha, R.Vinod Reddy
For the Respondents: S.Srinivasa Rao, L.Prabhakar Reddy
An electricity utility cannot claim the defence of 'Act of God' (vis-major) for damage caused by live wires if the agency had the opportunity to prevent the accident through reasonable maintenance and care, characterizing the incident as a foreseeable human-intervened event rather than an inevitable natural casualty.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 1 - Joinder of parties - Plaintiffs joined in a common suit for damages due to electrocution of cattle - Objections regarding misjoinder must be raised at the earliest opportunity - Failure to do so amounts to waiver.
(B) Torts - Negligence - Act of God (vis-major) - Defence not available when accident could have been avoided by reasonable care and diligence - Electrical authorities failed to disconnect power supply to lines despite notice of collapsed poles - Incident held to be a foreseeable risk, not an act of God. (Paras 16-21)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sued the electricity utility for compensation after their cattle died from electrocution caused by live wires near a collapsed electric pole following heavy rain. The defendants contended the occurrence was an 'act of God' and argued that there was a misjoinder of causes of action, claiming the incident occurred due to the negligence of the cattle's herd-keeper.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the electricity authorities had notice of the damage and had performed partial repairs but failed to inspect and secure the specific transformer line that caused the fatalities. The failure to exercise reasonable care rendered the authorities liable, and the defence of 'vis-major' was rejected.
Issues: Whether the suit suffered from misjoinder of causes of action and whether the incident qualified as an act of God, thereby absolving the defendants of liability.
Ratio Decidendi: An act of God must be directly attributable to natural forces without human intervention. When electrical authorities exercise control over power lines, they are under a continuous duty to inspect and maintain lines; failure to prevent foreseeable accidents, despite adequate notice or the ability to act, constitutes negligence rather than a protected natural event.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The Second Appeal was filed by the defendants (appellants) against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, which had reversed the judgment of the trial court and awarded damages to the plaintiffs (respondents) for the death of nine buffaloes caused by electrocution (!) (!) .
-
The plaintiffs claimed that their cattle died due to contact with live electric wires, which had fallen on the ground following heavy rain and wind, and alleged negligence on the part of the defendant authorities for failing to disconnect live wires or repair fallen
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of trial facts and procedural history regarding electrocution claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. framing of the substantial questions of law and rival arguments of the parties. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. admissibility of a joint suit and the principle of waiver of objection to misjoinder. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 4. redefinition of the defence of act of god versus failure in the duty of care. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. final dismissal of the second appeal and confirmation of the trial decree. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants – appellants – defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2006 passed in A.S.No.72 of 2005 by the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda in reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2005 passed in O.S.No.88 of 2000 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda.
2. The respondents are the plaintiffs. The parties are here in after referred to as arrayed before the trial court.
3. The plaintiffs 1 to 7 filed the suit against the defendants claiming damages of Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest and costs on account of death of nine (09) she buffaloes due to electrocution due to the negligence of the defendants.
4. The case of the plaintiffs was that they all belonged to Laxmidevigudem Village, Hamlet of Amangal of Vemulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District. They owned small extents of lands and their livelihood was on agriculture. They acquired the cattle wealth to improve their living conditions. They usually graze their cattle in the agricultural fields under their personal supervision except in the months of April to June, as there would be no harvest of crops in the fields at that time. All the villagers used to let out their cattle in the fields without supervision during the said months. As usual, while they had let out their cattle on 31.05.2000 at about 08:00 AM and when the cattle were grazing in the agricultural field belonging to one Perapaka Bixam, the cattle came into contact with live electric wire and died on the spot due to electric shock. On knowing the said fact, the plaintiffs lodged the complaint with Police Vemulapalli. The Police Vemulapalli registered Crime No.33 of 2000 under Section 429 of IPC. They took up investigation, conducted panchanama and the dead bodies of the cattle were subjected to post mortem examination by a veterinary surgeon. The veterinary surgeon who conducted the PME opined that the cause of death was due to electric shock.
4.1. The plaintiffs further submitted that prior to the incident i.e. on 29.05.2000, there was heavy rain in the village. Due to heavy rain, the electric poles were damaged and some of the poles were collapsed. The villagers who noticed the said fact, informed the defendant authorities at Sub-Station, AP TRANSCO, Thadakamalla and requested to restore the electric poles. The defendant authorities inspected the village and restored some of the lines and disconnected the power supply to the collapsed poles in the neighboring village habitation, but failed to disconnect the power lines to the transformer situated nearby the fields of Perapaka Bixam on the eastern side of the village. The plaintiffs, who were not aware of the said fact that the power supply was not disconnected, left their cattle (she buffaloes) for grazing purpose. The plaint schedule buffaloes while grazing came into contact with live electric wire fallen on the ground in the field of Perapaka Bixam and died on the spot. The plaintiffs contended that as the defendant authorities failed to discharge their legitimate duties and left open the live electric wires in the field open to access to all the living creatures, the said incident occurred. If the defendant authorities acted with due diligence, the accident would have been averted and the lives of schedule cattle would have been saved, avoiding financial loss to the plaintiffs, as such cla
