Jambula Hymavathi, Vs The Divisional Engineer (Operations)

¶1

APHC010420362014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

ii

¶4

TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶7

APPEAL SUIT NO: 498 OF 2014

¶8

Appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 01-05-2014 made in O.S.No.104 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Kadapa,^District. Between:

¶9

Jambula Hymavathi, W/o. Late Jambula Somasekhar Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ: House Wife,

¶10

Jambula Neeraja, D/o. Late Jamubula Somasekhar Reddy, Aged about 11 years, Occ: Student,

¶11

Jambula Sneha, D/o. Late Jamubula Somasekhar Reddy, Aged about 9 years, Occ: Student,

¶12

Jambula Pullamma, w/o.Late Gangi Reddy Aged about 59 years, (Appellants No.2 and 3 are minors represented by their mother and natural guardian J.Hymavathi, i.e.. Appellant No.1 herein.) Appellants No.1 to 4 are residing at Krishnamagaripalle Post, H/o.GundIa Madug u, Thonduru. Mandal, Y.S.R.District.

¶13

...APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶14

f

¶15

gS59^.?-

¶16

AND

¶17

r

¶18

The Divisional Engineer Operations, APSPDCL, Pulivendula^Townand Mandal, Y.S.R.District.

¶19

The Assistant Engineer Operations, APSPDCL, Thonduru Post and Mandal, Y. S. R. District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶21

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI P.DURGA PRASAD REPRESENTING SRI K MUNI REDDY BALA PRASAD

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ASHOK KONDETI REPRESENTING SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

¶23

The Court made the following JUDGMENT :

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶25

APPEAL SUIT No.498 of 2014

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed^against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.l04 of 2011 dated 01.05.2014 on the file of the Court of learned 1 Additional District Judge at Kadapa. 2. The plaintiffs, before the Trial Court, are the^appellants herein. The respondents herein are the defendants. 3. The appellants instituted the suit against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs. 12,52,000/-^with interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till^thedate of realization and for costs. 4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the Trial^Court,itis necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings. 5. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs in brief in the plaint was as follows;

¶28

i). One Jambula Soma Sekhar Reddy (hereinafter called as “the deceased”) got installed an electrical

¶29

2

¶30

motor in the land an extent of Ac.9.43 cents belongs to the appellants situated near Ragimanuthota and he cultivating the said land along with other family members. ii). On 13.10.2008 at about 05.00 a.m., when the deceased went to the said fields for watering the garden and tried to switch on the starter of the motor, the aluminum wire which was given connection to the starter from the L.T. pole was cut and the wire fell on the chest of the deceased, resulted the deceased got electrocuted and died on the spot,

¶31

hi). It is the dufy of the respondents to give connection to the starter from the L.T. pole, but they simply inserted the wire to save the cost, thereby, they are negligent in discharging their duties.

¶32

s

¶33

3

¶34

iv). Then the police registered a case in Cr.No.l33 of 2008 of Pulivendula Police Station and got conducted postmortem to the dead body of the deceased. v). By the date of incident, the deceased was aged about 34 years and he is the only bread winner in the family. Due to the untimely demise of the deceased, the appellants suffering from mental agony and unable maintain themselves.

¶35

vi). The appellants sent a notice, dated 19.02.2010 demanding the respondents to pay compensation but they denied for the same by reply with false allegations. Hence, the suit.

¶36

The defendants denying the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement as follows:

¶37

i). The department has no knowledge about the death of the deceased and they have no information about the incident. The death of the deceased is at his own

¶38

A

¶39

4

¶40

risk and there is liability only on the field owner. The deeeased is not the consumer of the department or paying any consumption charges, ii). On verification, immediately after the incident, by the defendant No.2, found that the consumer with his own funds purchased the aluminum wire at cheaper cost without the knowledge of the defendants and connected the same to the main pole. Due to sub standard quality of wire, the same was cut, resulted the incident. Thereby, the death of the deceased is only due to self-negligence. Further, the suit filed by the plaintiffs after lapse of 2 y2 years is barred by limitation and it is not maintainable. Therefore prays to dismiss the suit.

¶41

On these pleadings, the Trial Court settled the following issues and an additional issue for Trial:

¶42

Whether the electric shock with which the deceased Soma Sekhar Reddy, died is due to the negligence of the defendants?

¶43

i

¶44

5

¶45

2.Whether the plaintiffs are the dependent legal heirs of the deceased Soma Sekhar Reddy?

¶46

3.Whether the plaintiffs suffered the damages to the extent of the suit claim due to the death of the deceased Soma Sekhar Reddy?

¶47

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of Rs. 12,52,000/as prayed for? and

¶48

5.To what relief?”

¶49

Additional Issue:

¶50

Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is within time?

¶51

2 8. At the Trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.l and were examined while relying on Exs.A. 1 to A. 11 in^supportof their contentions. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.l was examined and Exs.B.l to B.4 were marked.

¶52

Basing on the material and evidence. Trial Court came to conclusion that the defendants’ department is negligentⁱⁿ maintaining the service connection wire, resulted death^ofthe deceased, thereby, they are liable to pay the compensation^to the plaintiffs, however, in view of Article 82 of the^Limitation

¶53

6

¶54

Act, the present suit filed beyond two years and ISi not maintainable, thus, the dismissed the suit, 10. It IS against this decree and judgment, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred this appeal. 11. Heard Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri K.Muni Reddy Bala Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri Ashok Kondeti, learned counsel representing Sri Venkata Ramarao Kota, leaned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 12. Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri K.Muni Reddy Bala Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the suit for damages was filed on account of the Tortious Act committed by the respondents, but, not under Sections 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, thereby. Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application; that when the Tortious liability arising due to negligence, mistake, defective planning and failure to discharge public duty, it is governed by the

¶55

7

¶56

provision of the Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1963, in which case, the limitation is three (3) years from^thedateof death of a person, but not under Article 82 of the^Limitation Act, 1963, thereby, the Trial Court grossly erred in dismissing the suit on account of limitation. In support of the^above contentions, he relied upon a pronouncement of HonT^le Supreme Court in The Kerala State Electricity Board v. K. V.Bhaskaran Nair^ in which relied upon its earlier pronouncement in Jay Laxmi Slat Works (P) LTD., v.^State of Gujarat^.

¶57

Per contra, Sri Ashok Kondeti, learned counsel representing Sri Venkata Ramarao Kota, leaned counsel for the respondents/defendants strenuously submits that^when a suit filed for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, Article 82 provides for a specific period of limitation i.e., two (2) years from the date of the death of the person;^that it is not justified to apply for computation of period of^limitation

¶58

’ 2002 2 KLJ 211, 2002 Supreme(ker) 499

¶59

2 1994 3uDreme(SC) 507

¶60

8

¶61

under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, since the claim is not for loss due to damage of property. In support of the above contentions, he relied upon a pronouncement of Tripura High Court in Sipra Banik V. Chai rman-cum-Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited as well a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damini V. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited^.

¶62

It is against this backdrop, the only point that arises for determination need consideration now, “Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit on account of Limitation under Article 82 of the Act? 15. POINT:

¶63

Before deciding the above point, this Court would like to refer certain admitted facts as culled from the record. 16. It is not in dispute about the date of deceased on 13.10.2008. Further, no appeal was preferred by the

¶64

'' AIR Supreme Court 4901, 2017 (9) SCC 443.

¶65

3 2015 AIR TRIP 90.

¶66

9

¶67

defendants against the findings of the Tribunal that the defendant department is alone responsible to maintain^the service connection wire up to the point of starter and they cannot disown their liability, thereby, due to their negligence only the incident was occurred, resulted death of the deceased and they are liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs.

¶68

In view of the above admitted facts, this Court need^not go into the other merits of the matter, now, it is^onlybefore this Court to decide the maintainability of the suit^onthe point of limitation.

¶69

On this aspect, it is the only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs that the Article^82ofthe Limitation Act has no application to the present case^onhand and the same is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation^Act.

¶70

In support of the same, he relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.V.Bhaskaran^Nair case (referred to supra-1), wherein it was held that:

¶71

10

¶72

“....In Jay Laxmi Salt Works case the Supreme Court held that when Tortious liability arising due to negligence, mistake, defective planning or failure to discharge public duty, it is governed by the provision of Article 113 of the Indian Limitation Act, the residuary Article. The Apex Court considered the meaning of the work “tort”. It was held that the test should be whether injury or damage occurred due to failure or duty to take reasonable car n (emphasis supplied)

¶73

In the considered opinion of this Court, the above decision has no application to the present case on hand. admittedly, the suit is filed by the plaintiffs, who are legal heirs of the deceased, claiming compensation for the^deathof the deceased due to the electric shock, on account^ofthe negligence of the electricity officials, thereby, the^suitcomes under the category of lA of Fatal Accidents Act. 21. When it comes to the observations of the Tripura High Court in Sipra Banik case (referred to supra-3), by referring the catena of pronouncements of various High

¶74

11

¶75

Courts, there is categorical distinguishment to the applicability of the Article 82 of the Limitation Act^forthe claim under the Fatal Accidents Act in a case of death of person as well Article 113 of the Limitation Act for^theclaim for damages to property.

¶76

Now, it is relevant to mention the categorical observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a^recent judgment in Damini case (referred to supra-4), which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, that:

¶77

“12. The appellants have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. V. State of Gujarat to justify their argument that Article 113 should be applied for computation of period of limitation. Jay Laxmi (supra) was not^a case of death of a person and it was also not a case under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It pertained to a claim of damages for loss due to damage to property. Therefore, Jaya Laxmi (supra) has no relevant in a suit for damage under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. Therefore, the suit under

¶78

'ib

¶79

12

¶80

Section lA of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 has to be filed within two years.”

¶81

(emphasis supplied)

¶82

In view of the above categorically observations made by the Apex Court, it is crystal clear that once a specific period of limitation is referrable to any of the entries in the Schedule to,the Limitation Act, 1963, then the residuary Article 113 cannot be invoked. In the instant case, for a suit for damages under Section lA of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, Article 82 provides for a specific period of limitation i.e., two (2) years from the date of death of the person. Admittedly, the present suit IS filed before the Trial Court on 29.08.2011, which is beyond two (2) years from the date of death of the deceased i.e., 13.10.2008, barred by limitation under Article 82 of the Limitation Act.

¶83

Having regard to the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the Trial Court after thorough appreciation of the matter, rightly^dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, now, in view of the above

¶84

13

¶85

settled legal position, this Court has no reason to^interfere with the well-articulated judgment passed by the Trial^Court, as such, the present appeal has no merits and the same^is liable to be dismissed.

¶86

In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming^the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.l04 of 2011 dated 01.05.2014 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional

¶87

District Judge at Kadapa. There shall be no order as^tocosts.

¶88

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶89

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.

¶90

SDI- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶91

//TRUE COPY//

¶92

SECTION OFFICER

¶93

One fair copy to the Honourable Sri Justice V.Srinivas

¶94

(For His lordship’s kind perusal)

¶95

To

¶96

The First Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, (with records if any)

¶97

One CC to Sri. K Muni Reddy Bala Prasad Advocate [OPUC]

¶98

One CC to Sri. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC for APSPDCL Advocate [OPUC]

¶99

Nine (9) L.R copies

¶100

The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

¶101

The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings at Amaravathi

¶102

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi

¶103

Two CD Copies stu

¶104

TAC

¶105

HIGH COURT DATED:16/09/2025

¶106

JUDGMENT + DECREE AS NO. 498 OF 2014

¶107

5 2 3 SEP 2025 |
^ Current Section

¶108

DISMISSING THE APPEAL

¶109

APHC010420362014

¶110

SMS

¶111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶112

TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEME^feR'l TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶113

PRESENT

¶114

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶115

APPEAL SUIT NO: 498 OF 2014

¶116

Between:

¶117

Jambula Hymavathi, W/o. Late Jambula Somasekhar Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ: House Wife,

¶118

Jambula Neeraja, D/o. Late Jamubula Somasekhar Reddy, Aged about 11 years, Occ: Student,

¶119

Jambula Sneha, D/o. Late Jamubula Somasekhar Reddy, Aged about 9 years, Occ; Student,

¶120

Jambula Pullamma, w/o.Late Gangi Reddy Aged about 59 years, (Appellants No.2 and 3 are minors represented by their mother^and natural guardian J.Hymavathi, i.e., Appellant No.1 herein.) (Appellants No.1 to 4 are residing at Krishnamagaripalle Post, H/o.GundIa Madugu, Thonduru. Mandal, Y.S.R.District.)

¶121

...APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶122

AND

¶123

The Divisional Engineer Operations, APSPDCL, Pulivendula Town and Mandal, Y.S.R.District.

¶124

r >

¶125

The Assistant Engineer Operations, APSPDCL, Thonduru Post and Mandal, Y. S. R. District.

¶126

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶127

Appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 01-05-2014 made in O.S.No.104 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Kadapa,^District.

¶128

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri P.Durga Prasad representing Sri K Muni Reddy Bala Prasad, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Ashok Kondeti representing Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FCR APSPDCL, Advocate for Respondents.

¶129

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶130