THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA AND

COMMON JUDGMENT:

The appeal suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Appellant/Defendnats against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, Karimnagar, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned trial court’) in O.S.No.15 of 1998, dated

25.04.2001.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned trial court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of the deceased viz., Veeraswami, have filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) with an interest of 18% per annum for the damages from the date of death of the deceased Veeraswamy from the defendants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased on the intervening night of 27/28.10.1997, at 2:00 a.m. was returning from the cattle shed situated in front of his house after tying the bulls in the cattle shed, suddenly the current wires with equipment fell down from the pole and the deceased came in contact with the live wire due to which he died on the spot. It is contended that the death of the deceased was caused due to the negligence of the defendants who did not checked upon the said equipment and not properly fixed the said electric wire, due to which the deceased died and the plaintiffs claimed for Rs.2,50,000/- for the damages.

5. Defendant No.2 i.e., the Department has filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the deceased died only due to his own negligence and improper care and that it is also denied of the registering of the case by the police. It is also denied that the defendants promised to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs and that the defendant No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation as there was no negligence on their part. Defendant No.2 also denied about the income of the deceased and also the age and avocation of the deceased and therefore prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned trial court framed the following issues which read as under:

“i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to suit claim as prayed for?

2. To what relief?”

7. To substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 herself examined as PW-1 and also examined one Sathiri Kumaraswamy as PW-2 and marked Ex.A-1 & A-2. DW-1 was examined on behalf of the defendant No.2.

8. After hearing both the counsel and considering the entire material placed, the learned trial court came to conclusion that defendants are liable to pay the compensation as it is a clear case that the deceased died due to the negligence on the part of the defendants while fixing the pole wires, resulting the death of the deceased due to electrocution and also considering the income of the deceased @ Rs.50/- per day and taken Rs.1,500/- as monthly income and also taking life expectancy, awarded an amount of Rs.85,000/- to the plaintiffs with an interest @

9% from the date of accident till the date of realization.

9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2001, the present appeal is filed on the following among other grounds contending that the learned trial court did not consider that there was no negligence on the part of the department while fixing the live wires on the pole and it is only the negligence of the deceased. Further, the learned trial court ought to have seen that the cable wire is properly insulated and properly fitted to the pole at any point of time the wire can’t be cut-off from the pole and there is no possibility to get the electric shock with AB cable at middle portion as stated by the plaintiffs. The deteriorate service wire used for theft of energy had fallen on the ground on 27.10.1997, wherein the heavy gale and wind which fallen on the deceased due to which he died, but not because of coming in contact with the electricity wire passin