Dismissed

The Chairman and Managing Director v. Pujari Naga Subbamma

Telangana HC27 Aug 2012SA/339/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal filed by defendants, the High Court dismissed the appeal in a compensation suit arising from electrocution death. Upholding trial court finding of limitation under Article 113 and establishing negligence despite illegal connection, the court held the suit was maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

The Chairman and Managing Director Vs Pujari Naga… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO.339 OF 2011

¶2

JUDGMENT:-

¶3

The Second Appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.71 of 2006 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

¶4

The suit was filed for compensation consequent on the death of the deceased Pujari Venkata Swamy due to electrocution. According to the case of the plaintiffs, who are wife and son of the deceased, on 1106-2011 during night time when the deceased was sleeping on a cot infront of the house of one Gangula Lakshmamma, a live electrical wire fell on him and consequently he died. He was the sole bread winner of the family and compensation of Rs.5 lakhs was claimed.

¶5

The defendants denied the knowledge of the incident and the electricity connection to the house of Gangula Lakshmamma was not regular and, therefore, there is no fault of the defendants. There was an illegal connection taken by Gangula Lakshmamma and the claim for compensation is excessive and untenable. The suit is also barred by time.

¶6

After considering the material evidence on record, the trial court after an elaborate discussion of the fact and also the legal principles accepted the claim of the plaintiffs and granted a compensation of Rs.3,29,500/-. As against that appeal A.S.No.37 of 2008 was preferred to the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty who also dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Second Appeal is sought to be filed.

¶7

The substantial question of law sought to be raised is that the suit is barred by time. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the plaintiffs is Article 72 of the Limitation Act,1963 which deals with omission to do an act, which has to legally do, which evidently has no application to the facts of the case. Article 82 has also no application since the compensation was claimed under the general law of torts when the cause of action arose. In cases of the electrocution, no specific provision has been made and consequently the residuary Article 113 is applicable,

¶8

which was applied by the courts below. The court below has relied upon a decision of this court reported in A.P.State Electricity Board, Hyderabad and another Vs., Y.Venu Kumar [ 2006(3) ALD 710 ] whereunder this court held that the claim is within Article 113 of the Act providing for the period of limitation of three(3) years. Therefore, in view of the settled provision of law, there cannot be any further contention that the suit is barred by time when evidently it is filed within three years from the date of death of the deceased.

¶9

Sofar as the negligence is concerned, even if the alleged electric connection was taken illegally by Gangula Lakshmamma, it is the duty of the appellants to check such illegal connection and to prevent the dangerous consequences by such acts. Evidently, the appellants have failed to take such steps and consequently it cannot be said that there is no negligence on the part of the appellants.

¶10

Both the courts below on question of law and fact have come to a right conclusion and I do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion and there is no substantial question of law to be entertained in this Second Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

¶12

___________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J

¶13

27-08-2012 TSNR

The Chairman and Managing Director v. Pujari Naga Subbamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman and Managing Director v. Pujari Naga Subbamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Lakshmidevi Vs M. Virupaksha Reddy

M.R.Venu Vs Veluchuri Lakshmi

Dr.Prashant K.Ravi Vs Mohd. Naimatullah (died)

Malluvalasa Mavullayya (Died) Vs Atava Tirupatirao

Mekala Sai Prasad Vs Shaik Mahaboob sab [died]

The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Vs a.Karunanidhi