THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.10 of 2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad District, the present Appeal Suit is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, filed a suit seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the defendants stating that one 11KV electricity live wire, which was hanging at a dangerously low height over her house in Pedda Yellapur village, snapped and fell on her on 10.03.2014 while she was performing domestic chores in front of her house. Despite making several complaints to the Electricity Department about the poor and unsafe condition of the electric line, no remedial action was taken. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained severe electric burns covering over 30% of her body, leading to permanent disability and significant hardship, including substantial medical expenses and loss of her ability to work and support her family.

3. On the other hand, the defendants denied the allegations of negligence stating that the electric line was constructed as per the required standards and was maintained properly. They claimed that the accident occurred due to a natural calamity, a gale and strong wind on the day of the incident, which caused the wire to snap and fall. The defendants further contended that the house of the plaintiff was constructed beneath the electric line after its installation and that they were not responsible for the unfortunate event. They also alleged that the plaintiff failed to provide any prior complaint on record to substantiate her claim that the hazardous condition of the wire was previously brought to their notice.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed two issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 was examined and Ex.A1 to A48 are marked. DW.1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.

5. Upon thorough examination of the evidence, the trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2016, decreed the suit holding that the defendants failed to produce any material proof to support their claim of a natural disaster on the day of the incident and that the burden of proof regarding proper maintenance and the absence of negligence lies with the Electricity Department, particularly in light of the statutory obligations under Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules. The trial Court also relied on the prior conviction of the Assistant Engineer and Lineman in criminal proceedings under Section 338 IPC, holding them responsible for the injuries caused to the plaintiff. This conviction further established the negligence of the electricity authorities and that the trial Court held that the accident was a result of the negligence of the defendants in failing to maintain the electric line in a safe condition. Taking into consideration the plaintiff’s medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, and ongoing disability, the trial Court awarded a compensation of Rs.5,51,959/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the accident until the date of realization. The defendants were held jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants/defendants filed the present appeal suit.

6. Heard Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for TSNPDCL, appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri D. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material facts and evidence on record and that the overhead 11KV electric lines were laid much prior to the construction of the house of the respondent, and as such, the appellants cannot be held liable for the subsequent construction made by the respondent beneath the said lines. He further submitted that the trial Court did not consider the fact that, on the day of the incident, ther