This appeal challenged a compensation decree of Rs. 15,04,000 for death due to electric shock. The High Court reduced the compensation by recalculating the future prospects and multiplier but upheld negligence. Appeal partly allowed.
Compensation reduced from Rs. 15,04,000/- to Rs. 10,27,200/-
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3258 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CITY CIVIL COURT AP EAL NO: 178OF 2018
Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 31/0812016 made in O.S.No. 150 of 2O11 on the file of the Court of the Xll Additional Chief Judge,City Civil Court , SecuMerabad.
Between:
,..APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS
lA NO: 2 OF 2o18
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including execution of the decree dated.31.8.2016 passed in O.S.No.l50 of 2011 on the file of the Xll Additional.Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Secunderabad.pending disposal of the appeal.
I
t
l.
I !
counsel for the Appe!lants : sRl. R vlNoDREDDY(SCFORTSTRANSCO) Counsel forthe Respondents: M/S D.MADHAVARAO (NOT PRESENT) The Court deliverecl the following:JUOGMENT
it .: -t t ,I t ; t ;) I ;
i
. .t: e,
i
''.'
I :
I
THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.C.C.A.No. 174 OF 2OL8
JUDGMENT:
Be ing aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.150 of 20 11 on the file of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter be referred to as tria-l Court) whereunder the trial Court granted an amount of Rs. 15,04,000/- as compensation on account of death of one Sameer Sherali Lalani (hereinafter be referred to as deceased) due to el.ectric shock, the defendants in the above said suit have filed this appeal on the following grounds:
The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence while considering the fact that the accident did not occur due to negligence of the officials of the appellants herein and the Court below ought to have consider that the alleged accident took place due to the negligence of the owner of the building, but not due to the negligence of the appellants helein. The appellants have also claimed that the Court below r:ommitted an error by fixing liability on the appellants. The alleged accident took place due to
2
cCcA No.17A of 2018
illegal construction taken up by the owner of the house without obtaining any sanction from the Greater Hyderatrad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and the same was adrnitted by the owner of the house '"vho is examined as PW3. They have also claimed that the Court below committed error in granting a sum of Rs.15,04,000/without any documentary proof about the income of the deceaserl. They have further claimed that the Court below could trave consider the income of the deceased as Rs.3,OO0/- per month which is an appropriate salary of an unskillerl employee. The Court below failed to consider the contentions of the appellants that the respondr:nts/plaintiffs did not frle any salary certificate, but accepted the claim of the respondents that the deceasecl was earning Rs. 1O,OO0/- per month, thereby the appellants sought for setting aside t}re award.
3
CCCA No-174 oJ 2O78
I ir
29.O3.2O11 at about 12:30 p.m. in the noon, the deceased went to terrace of the house to check the TV antenna as the TV was not getting proper signals and while checking the antenna by standing on the terrace, he came into contact with live high tension wire which was running along rvith the building which is one feet away from the house, thereb;r he received severe electric shock and though he was immediately taken to Yashoda hospital, was declared as brought dead. The respondents have filed S a complaint before the police which was registered Crime No.75 of 2011.
-_-----:
4
CCCA No.178 of 2ola
'-'.
J
CCCA t{o- 174 oJ 20 la
li
7 . Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents.
'l
6
CCCA No.178 ol 2O18
died took place due to illegal construction of the building as claimed bg the appellants h.erein?
As already stated the respondents/ plaintiffs in spite of service of notice about the appeal, did not chose to appear before the Court. The appellants herein did not adduce any oral and documentar5r evidence. However, the appellants have claimed that the accident took place due to illegal construction of the building. The appellants have claimed that there is no evidence to believe that the death of the deceased was due to electrocutions, but they did not chose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. Apart from the oral evidence, the respondents have marked the original death certificate of the deceased as Ex.A4. The news item about the death of the deceased in Sakshi daily dated 30.03.2011 is marked as Ex.A3. Therefore, the evidence of PWs I to 4 coupled with Exs.A3 and A4 established the contentions of the respondents namely the
{
7
CCCA No.77a of 2078
l. I :
i
deceased suffered severe electric shock r.l,hen he came into contact with live wire while checking TV antenna and died due to the said injuries. Even though the appellants claimed that there was no proof about the death of the cleceased, took another stand that even if there is any such accident, it could have been due to the illegal construction of the building. As per the evidence placed before the Court, it appears that the respondents have occupied a portion of the house owned by PW3. It may be a fact that that PW3 constructed the building without obtaining any sanction or plan, but that may be a conclusive proof to accept that the above referred electrocution was due to the alleged illegal construchon.
B
, I
CCCA No.178 of 2018
department lli expected to take every precaution rvhiie laying high tension live wire in a residential locality. They simply cannot escape by saying that the btrilding w'as constructed without obtaining plan or sanction. The appellants clid not file any proof to show that the house was constructed very close to the current poles. When once there are residential houses, it is the duty of the appellant/ Department to tzrke precautions for avoiding the possible accidents. But, in the case on hancl it seems the deceased su ffered severe current shock while he was on the terrace cf the building, thereby in vien' of the maxim namely Res; Ipsa Loquitor, it shows that there was negligence in maintenance of the high tension live wire in a residential )ocality. Therefore the Court below rightly accepted tht: r:ontention of the respondents for awarding compensation.
9
CCCA No.178 of 2018
I I
I l
t
t
per month. According to the oral evidence, it seems the deceased was aged about 20 years and he was studying Intermediate at the time of accident. The respondents have claimed that he was working lna bakery and earning RS.10,000/- per month. It is very easy for the respondents to claim that the boy was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working in a bakery, but the lact remains that he was a student of intermediate. Even il it considered that he is working as a pa-rt time employee for earning some income, the same cannot be a sum of Rs. 10,0O0 /- per month as claimed by the respondents. At the same time the contentions of the respondents that had the boy was alive, he could have completed his studies and earn suflicient income which he can contribute to the family can a-lso be considered. Therefore, instead of calculating the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month with future prospects of Rs.3,24,000/- as observed by the trial Court, the monthly income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.6,0OO/- and 4O%o of the said income shali be added as future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income would be Rs.8,4OO/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 5O7o of the said income shall be deducted as such the same shall be
10
I F r,f' r{ T. i!.4[. ,, ,i.
CCCA No.178 of 2O18
treated as Rs.4,200/- per month. In vierv of the age of the deceased being 20, relevant multiplier is 18. Therefore, the loss of in,:ome would be Rs.4,2O0/- X 12 X 18: Rs.9,07,200/-. The record shows that soon after the accident th() parents have shifted the injured to hospital, but he died. Therefore, in addition to the aboe amount the respondents/parents a-re entitled to Rs.So,OOO/- towards transportation, hospital charges and Rs.70,000/- under other heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Therefore, the total compensation is reduced from Rs. 15,4O,OO0/- to Rs. 10,27,2007 -.
the compensation as Rs.lO,27,2OO I -.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if
any, sha-Il siand closed.
SD/. K SRINIVASA SRINIVASA RAO' JOINTREGISTBAR. '.^ / //TRUE COPY// \ SECTIONOFFICER
I SD/. K SRINIVASA SRINIVASA RAO'
, JOINT REGISTBAR.
i '.^ /
//TRUE COPY// <br>I
I SECTION OFFICER
_t
lo,
t
:-1 The Xll Adrjitional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Secunderabad' (With
I records, if arry)
fi t2:l d; ac to sai. n vlNoD REDDY (sc FoR rsrRANSco)' [oPucl
+3 One CC to M/S. D.MADHAVA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]
t,4
Two CD Copies
t
i ADK
t\ll
.
I
: I i i. l.r ; :
,1,: I
it ,{ i.ti
t* Ifl ht :'i , t !{tGH COUR'r n€ I DATED:28t0712023 fI i ii!. I i i tiI t :,i ? f, JUDGMENT .t'r ;iI : CGCA.No.178 of 2018 It txtr t ! i, : i i.i i. .: i"i , ',[, iffi 'f1 ,li t 1,lt "'.iSiil, j if,... t PARTLY ALLOWING THE CCCA : \)-q t*'
I HE stl 16
(
i:.,
l!
3 02 FEB 20:4 :i
/
1{ (.,,
{t, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
,.k ., ,, AT.HYDERABAD
,li:
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
,!
. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
.', : PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
c 5 .ar, CITY CIVIE COURT APPEAL NO: 178 OF 2018
:'iu!
een
I'ffi **llffi ;::i {i gffi '
e TSSCPDCL,' r(piesently, known as Telangana state southern power
Distribution company. limited (TSSPDCL) represented by its Managing
Director and chairman, Mint compound, Hyderabad.
The ri.. Divisional i'^ En jineer, ,. Distribution, . ,TSSCPDCL(, presently known
asTelangana state southern power Distribution Company limited (TSSPDCL)),-
ames Street,,Secunderabad
j') ttc--.'.t'., et . -
rtronal urvrstonal Engr neei, Distribution, ,, i..:j..ik.,, ... Maredally Division - 19, City -
5,.James Street, , TSSCPDCL. (presently known as Telangana state southern
power DiskibUtiori Cofrrpany limited (TSSPDCL)), Secunderabad.
The,Aliistant.En0in'eer,itSsCpDCL(presently known as Telangana state
southerntr:power IDistribution r compant. limited (TSSPDCL)), Marredpally
Division; Secunderabad.
:.1( ,,1]:
; ::.APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS
! t
Sherali La hai lalni, Aged 51 years,'Occ. Employee, Ryo H. No
3-35-529,-.Valmikinagdr, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.
l,ffi"Ii";;u",i'sii3;ari r-rrr.ii, Aseit:+6 years, occ. Housewife, Rr/o H. No
-35-529," Valmikinagar,. East Marredpally, Secunderabad
,
]. #$' .''I.REsPoNDENr./PLAINTIFFS
sri# i
der sectio 96ofC .P.C against the Judgrnent and Decree Dated
16 made in O.S.l,lo. .150 of 2011:on the file of the Court of th€ Xll
al Chief Judge,City. Civil Cou rtl,SeEufiderabad.*', t'
ant perusing the grounds
r Cburt and thd material papers in
dirrSRt, R:vlNoD REDDY (sc FoR
sco)'for'the Apfellant and of M/S I D.MADHAVA RAO, Advocate for the
Rt$riinuentd (hbt bresent)
:.c (
R
ME
l i I I i I I i I { jI : l l I, lln fn ihe iII {
I
-L
r
s Court dofl-
nd Decree as follows :
ty Civit
Pensation Appeal be
ll***, ," parfly allowed, modifyjns the
t thee to
Rs:',0,22
lt. ,200/-
tal Compensation be and hereby is reducd from Rs.15,40,0OO/-
t:
t
.l jx. t sD/- JOINTK sRf NIVASAREG,S RAO
lrrRUECOPYII
I.
i
SECT'O N OFF,CER
cordsi onati Chief Jud ge,
City Civit Court,
CD
Secunderabad. (With
'. |:
'i, r
;{lr# ,J,
-,f$.,]l;.,
.i rB, '
Ir'!.
i,' .'
,i .. d
T;, '
Idr,:. ':: . :
.t.
'-: I
'|;
,r t
.i _:r, -
::
-::
:
rl:
- ':'::
. , " r'- Il.:!l
,l
iI 1 :1 .1 I 'i .J I :1 : I
: ,; "i::
T
COURT :-;',- HI 2 DRAFTS
ED:281A71,2023
t
:t1
. 'r{i,ftl
.'f*','
w: l.i fi:j
.i
-t .,:, I. i-' .
ffi
MENT+DECREE '
No:178 of 2018
I ':,
:4 t..{;
I
) ." li'
,- 'i
;' t'
i
,{i::
,,r'ift*$cfft4f#
i #ffi.."i::'i'H &-dl: ,;
G THE CA
I
i.,
:t
T
I
+ffi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was any negligence on the part of the appellants in causing the accident resulting in the death of the deceased due to electric shock.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial court, based on the income of the deceased, should be reduced.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Res Ipsa LoquiturExplained¶8
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The TSSCPDCL (TSSPDCL)
Sherali Lalni
Smt. Rozina
SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
