The Superintendent Engineer v. K. Shakunthalamma
[ 3258 ]
IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU APPEAL SUIT NO: 2798 OF 2004 Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 19.04.2004 made in OS No.24 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.
Between:
1. The Superintendent Engineer, A.P" Transco Operations lr4ahabubnagar Mahabubnagar District.
2. The Assistaht Divisional Engineer, Operations, A.P. Transco, Pangal (M) Madhabubnagar District.
3. The Divisional Engineer, Operations, A.P. Transco, Wanaparthy Mahabubnagar District ...A''ELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS AND K. Shakunthalamma, W/o. late K.Venkat Reddy Household K.Jothinanda RedDy, S/o. late K.Venkat Reddy Student K.Rajavardhan Reddy, late K.Venkat Reddy Student (Respondents Nos.1 & 3 are residence of Kalwarala Village, Pangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District') ...RES'.NDENTS/ 'LATNTTFFS ASMP. NO: 1 24 0F 2004 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the decree and Judgment dated 19-4-2004 in OS No. 24 sof 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Wanaparthy pending final disposal of the above appeal ASMP. NO: 13750OF 2004 Between:
Smt K. Shakunthalamma, W/o. late K.Venkat Reddy Household K.Jothinanda Reddy, S/o. late Venkat Reddy Student K.Rajavardhan Reddy, S/o. late Venkat Reddy Student (All are Rl/o.Kalwarala Village, Pangal Mandal, ltrlahabubnagar District.) ...PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS J
AND
1. The Superintendent Engineer, A.P. Transco Operations Mahabubnagar Mahabubnagar District.
2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, A.P. Transco, Pangal (M) Madhabubnagar District.
3 The Divisional Engineer, Operations, A.P. Transco, Wanaparthy Mahabubnagar District.
...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/APPALLANTS Petition under Section '151 of CPC praying that for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted in ASlr,4P No.1232412004 dI.4-B-2004 in AS No.279Bt2OO4 as against the decree dt.19-4-2004 in OS No.24l2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar pending AS No.2798 For the Appellants : SRI K.V.RAJENDRA PRASAD, Advocate For the Respondents : SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU A.S.No.2798 of 2004 ]UDGMENT:
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.24 of 2003 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for compensation oF Rs.3,00,000/- with interest on account of death of one Venkat Reddy, who herein after will be referred as deceased.
2.
O.S.No.24 of 2003 has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs with an averment that first respondent is his wife and other respondents/plaintifFs are his children. He has got agricultural lands with a well connected with electric motor and service connection. On 19-11-2000 at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased died due to electrical shock in his fields when he switched on the current motor that is fitted to the agricultural well. The respondents have claimed that one high tension live wire which was snapped from main line fell on the low tension line as both the lines are passing on the same pole, there was electrical supply to the current motor and it caused the death of the deceased Venkat Reddy. \
SSR\.J A S.n'o.2798 of 2004 Therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit and sought for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/_ towards compensation. They have claimed that the deceased was only the breacl winner of the family. After registering the suit, the trial Court issued summons to the defendants i.e., appellants herein. The notice was served on the learned counsel for the appellants herein but he did not make his appearance. personal notices were also served on D1 to D3, even then there was no representation and no written statement was filed thereby, they were set ex parte. The respondents have examined PW.1 through whom Exs.Al to A9 were marked. The Court below accepted the claim of respondents and passed a decree directing the appellants herein to pay Rs.3,00,000/_ with costs and subsequent interest @ 6yo per annum. 3.
The present appeal is filed on the following grounds namely the decree and judgment of the trial Court is contrary of law, weight of evidence, and probabilities oF the case. The trial Court ought not to have decreed the suit in view of the fact that the Transmission Corporation Act of A.p., is to be non-suited because the electricity distribution and supply work was entrusted to the Central power Distribution
SSR\,.'
A.S.No 2793 ol2OOa Company Limited as per new enactment. The suit was originally filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool subsequently, transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Wanaparthy. An opportunity could have been afforded to the appellants herein for submitting their case. Appellants have also claimed that Ex.46 clearly show that the accident occurred due to short circuit, there was no negligence on their part thereby, sought For setting aside the judgment. 4.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who argued that no proper opportunity was given to the appellants to contest the suit. This is a fit case for remanding the matter to the trial Court and on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the accident occurred way back on 19-11-2000 i.e., about more than 21 years ago. A meager amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded as compensation for the death of deceased due to electric shock when there was power supply to the current motor. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the judgment and there are no grounds to remand the matter to the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
SSR\,J A.S No.2798 of 200a Now the point for consideration is :
Whether there are grounds to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court ?
6. As per the material placed before the Court including the judgment which is under challenge in the present appeal, it was the case of the respondents that on 19-11-2000, the deceased Venkat Reddy suffered electric shock when he tried to switch on the current motor which was fitted to the agricultural well. It was specifically alleged that there was power supply due to the fall of live high tension wire and low tension wife resulting power supply to the current motors. Therefore, it is nothing but negligence on the part of appellants herein. It is the duty of the department to see there should not have been such power supply to the current motor. As per the findings in para No.
4 of the judgment, it is very clear that apart from summons to the appellant herein, personal notices were also issued informing the claim of respondents/plaintiffs but the officials did not choose to contest the suit and allowed the judgment and decree to be passed. Therefore, there is negligence not only in the maintenance of the live wires but also in prosecuting the claim.
SSRT,J A S.No 2798 of 2O0r aside the judgment or even to refer the matter to the Court below after a period of 21 years. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
) Sd/.B.S,CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I SECTION OFFICER ' The senior civir Judoe. wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District. (with records) . one CC to M/s Kana-kameorir nruinam k;;: ,",ii Sri K.V.Rajendra Prasad, Advocates topUCl . 9n" 99 to Sri M.Damodarheddy, Advocate tOpUCl . Two CD Copies To
5. One Spare Copy "\)r Kj I I i
HIGH COURT DATED:1910712022 -f HE S14 oo Bll {:l ,./ ,./ 21 ,tRr zm
JUDGMENT
AS.No.2798 of 2004 :lFAitrHf,C'
c# DISMISSING THE A.S., WITHOUT COSTS.
[ 3258 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU APPEAL SUIT NO: 2798 OF 2004 Between:
1 . The Superintendent Engineer, A. P. Transco Operations Mahabubnagar Mahabubnagar District.
2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, A.P. Transco, Pangal (M) IVlad habubn a g a r Distri ct.
3. The Divisional Engineer, Operations, A.P. Transco, Wanaparthy Mahabubnagar District ...A''ELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS AND '1 . K. Shakunthalamma, Wo. late K.Venkat Reddy Household
2. K,Jothinanda RedDy, S/o. late K.Venkat Reddy Student
3. K.Rajavardhan Reddy, late K.Venkat Reddy Student (Respondents Nos.1 & 3 are residence of Kalwarala Village, Pangal [\rlandal, lvlahabubnagar District ) ...RES'.NDENTS/ 'LATNTTFFS Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and decree of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy in OS No.24 of 2003 dated 19.04.2004. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of M/s K.Ravindra Kumar, and Sri K.V.Rajendra Prasad, Advocates for the appellants and of Sri M.Damodar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents.
This Court doth Order and decree as follows :-
1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed; and
2. That there be no Order as to costs.
Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYI/ SECTION OFFICER To
1. The Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District
2. Two CD Copies
3. One Spare Copy Kj.
\k
HIGH COURT DATED:191O7;2022 DECREE AS.No.2798 of 2004 DISMISSING THE A.S., WITHOUT COSTS.
\&