HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.14 OF 2003

JUDGMENT:

The present Appeal Suit is filed challenging the order dated 19.04.2002 made in O.S.No.284 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Warangal.

2. The appellants herein are defendants, and respondents herein are plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.284 of 2000.

3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 are children, of one Jannu Kattamallu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who died on 16.09.1999 at about 07:15 A.M., due to electrocution. He was aged about 45 years by the date of his death. Deceased used to work as Mason in and around Warangal city and ear minimum of Rs.8,000/- per month. Being sole bread winner of the family, he used to maintain the whole family with his earnings till his death. At about 07:15 A.M., on 16.09.1999, the deceased lost his life while cleaning the drainage in front of his residence.

He came into contact with a stay wire connected to electricity pole No. DPM 20/1 situated directly outside his house, which, due to stray current, resulted in his instant electrocution. His wife, who witnessed the incident, promptly lodged a police complaint and a panchayat was convened. Alleging negligence by the Electricity Department in the upkeep and maintenance of the electric infrastructure, particularly the failure to install insulators and prevent current flow through stay wires, the plaintiffs sought compensation for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of income, estate, and consortium.

4. The Electricity Board, in its defense, acknowledged the electrocution but attributed the incident to the unauthorized and illegal tapping of electric power by one Polepaka Cheralu. It was contended that Cheralu had connected damaged PVC service wires from the overhead line to his home, leading to leakage of current from the pole's cross arm into the stay wire. The Board denied any fault in its own maintenance protocols, suggesting that the plaintiffs ought to have held Cheralu accountable instead. It further challenged the claimed monthly income of the deceased and asserted that the Department had neither received nor responded to any legal notice.

5. During trial, plaintiff No. 1 got herself examined as PW.1, recounting the incident in detail and affirming her husband's earnings as a mason. Supporting depositions from PWs.2 and 3 corroborated the circumstances of the incident and his profession, while documentary evidence, including Ex.A3 - inquest panchanama, confirmed the existence of service wires linked to Cheralu’s house and their improper insulation. On behalf of the Electricity Board, DW-1 affirmed that their departmental inspection had revealed illegal power tapping but admitted that no action was taken against Cheralu, despite awareness of the hazard.

6. The trial Court, after thoroughly analyzing the material on record, rejected the contention of Electricity Board that the sole blame lay with Cheralu, and held the Electricity Department culpable for negligence, emphasizing its duty to monitor and prevent unauthorized connections. The trial Court observed that the burden to prove absence of negligence rested on the Department and that such defenses were insufficient given the sustained existence of the dangerous connection without corrective action.

7. In determining compensation, the trial Court estimated the deceased’s monthly earnings as Rs.2,000/- and applied suitable legal principles and multipliers, settling on an annual contribution of Rs.20,000/-. After considering age, life expectancy, and standard deductions, the final compensation amount was calculated at Rs.1,85,000/-, inclusive of conventional heads like loss of estate and consortium. Interest at 12% per annum was awarded from the date of suit until realization. With the above, the suit was partly decreed. The Electricity Department was held liable to pay Rs.1,8