1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/Defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 24.02.2009, in O.S.No.201 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Kovvur [for short ‘the trial Court’].

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.201 of 2002, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Kovvur. During the pendency of the appeal suit, on 13.04.2017, the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, dismissed the appeal suit against the respondent No.2 as abated.

3. Originally, the plaintiff in O.S.No.201 of 2002 filed the suit against the defendants, seeking for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages, subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

4. Both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The case of the plaintiffs as per the plaint averments in O.S.No.201 of 2002, in brief, is as follows:

                  I. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife, the plaintiff No.2 is the father and the plaintiff No.3 is the mother of one Late Majji Krishna, who died due to an electrical shock on 14.08.2000. The plaintiffs pleaded that the deceased was eking out his livelihood by collecting firewood in the fields and by doing coolie works. On 14.02.2000, at about 12.00 noon, the said Krishna, who was aged about 22 years, went to the land of one Andru Venkata Ratnam in Gowripatnam village to collect firewood. While so, the high-tension electrical wires, which had fallen on the ground in the said land of Venkata Ratnam, touched the deceased and due to the electrical shock, he died on the spot. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the said accident was informed to them by one Bachala China Rama Rao and T.V. Atchuta Rama Rao, who worked as Panchayat Clerk in Gowripatnam village, and the said Panchayat Clerk gave a report to Devarapalli Police Station and the Police registered a case in Crime No.96 of 2000, under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thereafter, during the investigation, the Police held a post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased and an inquest was also conducted, and the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the deceased died due to Circulatory Failure because of the electrical shock. The plaintiffs further pleaded that due to the negligent acts of the staff of the defendants, the deceased died.

                  II. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 issued a registered notice dated 24.09.2001, demanding the defendant Nos.2 and 3 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 received the said notice, but they did not give any reply. Thereupon, the plaintiffs filed W.P.No.370 of 2002 before the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein a direction was given to the defendants to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide its order dated 17.07.2002, granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- as an ex-gratia amount by directing the plaintiffs to approach either the Consumer Forum or the Civil Court for claiming the damages, as such, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.

6. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement and the same was adopted by defendant Nos.2 and 3. The case of the defendants as per the written statement is as follows:

                  The defendants pleaded that there is no negligence on their part and there is no report of the alleged accident and death of the deceased. They further pleaded that when they received the notice in the Writ Petition, they came to know about the alleged death of the deceased due to electrical shock. The defendants further pleaded that the alleged notice dated 24.09.2021 was not sent to the Divisional Engineer, Operation, Nidadavole, who is empowered to represent the defendant No.1, and on verification of the records and on spot inspection of the place of the alleged accident, it was revealed that the alleged accident and the allegation of negligence of the defendants are false and as such, no liability can be attributed to the defendants. The defendants further pleaded that on verification of the spot, it was revealed that there was a Vagu which had trees of wild growth on its bunds and while collecting the firewood from the trees at the Vagu, the victim might have come in touch or might have meddled himself with the passing wires over the lines due to his own negligence or he might have died otherwise. Therefore, the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiffs is not correct and the defendants requested for dismissal of the suit.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

                  1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages? and

                  2) To what relief?

8. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.

9. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 24.02.2009, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants in the suit.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in decreeing the suit and awarding compensation of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum is contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence and the probabilities of the case. She would further contend that the trial Court erred in holding that Ex.B-2 is the self-serving document of the appellants and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said document. She would further contend that the finding of the trial Court that the appellants were negligent and because of the negligence, the deceased died due to electrification is not legal and correct, and she would further contend that the trial Court, without appreciating the evidence in a proper manner, came to a wrong conclusion and decreed the suit and the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit, and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge.

12. Heard Ms. Kothapalli Aishwarya Chowdary, learned Junior Standing Counsel representing Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.E.P.D.C.L. appearing for the appellants and Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

13. Now, in deciding the present appeal, the points that arise for determination is as follows:

                  1. Whether there was any negligence on the part of the appellants in maintaining the electrical wire and the deceased died due to such negligence?

                  2. Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit?

14. Point No.1:

                  Whether there was any negligence on the part of the appellants in maintaining the electrical wire and the deceased died due to such negligence?

                  The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased Majji Krishna. The contention of the plaintiffs is that on 14.08.2000 at about 12.00 noon, the said Krishna, who was aged about 22 years, went to the land of one Andru Venkata Ratnam in Gowripatnam village to collect firewood, at that time, high-tension electrical wires, which had fallen on the ground on the said land of Venkata Ratnam, touched the deceased and due to the electrical shock, he died on the spot and the same was informed to the defendants through one Bachala China Rama Rao and to T.V. Atchuta Rama Rao, who worked as Panchayat Clerk in Gowripatnam village. The appellants contended that there is no negligence on the part of the defendants and the entire negligence is on the part of the deceased only.

15. The plaintiffs relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 along with the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. It was suggested to P.W.1 and P.W.2 in cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defendants that while collecting firewood, the deceased climbed the trees and in that process he touched live wires and the said suggestion was denied by the witnesses. P.W.2 was the Panchayat Clerk. As per his evidence, there are no trees at the spot and there are no trees of a height of 15 feet on both sides of the said place of death. Ex.A-1 is the death certificate dated 15.09.2000, which shows that the deceased died on 14.08.2000. Ex.A-2 is the First Information Report registered by the Station House Officer, Devarapalli Police Station. It was issued by P.W.5 based on the report given by P.W.2. Ex.A-3 is the copy of the final report; it shows that the aforesaid case was closed by the Police with a conclusion that the deceased died in an accident due to electrical shock.

16. The plaintiffs also relied on Ex.A-4 inquest report. In Ex.A-4 inquest report, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are the signatories. Ex.A-4 reveals that the inquest Panchayatidars came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to electrical shock. Ex.A-5 is the post-mortem certificate dated 16.08.2017 said to have been issued by the Government Hospital. Ex.A-5 goes to show that the doctor at the Government Hospital conducted a post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to electrical shock. As stated supra, Ex.A-4 inquest report shows that the live wires were cut and fallen down on the ground and the inquest Panchayatidars and P.W.5 found the said wires on the ground at about 04.15 p.m. on the date of the death of the deceased. Furthermore, Ex.A-8 is the scene observation report shows that two live wires out of four wires were cut and fallen down on the ground and the said two live wires were at the legs of the dead body of the deceased. There was abundant material to show that the electrical live wires were fallen on the ground and the deceased touched the same while collecting the firewood and that he died in the land of Venkata Ratnam on 14.08.2000. Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-7 go to show that the plaintiffs sent a legal notice through their counsel, which was received by the defendants. As per the evidence on record, the plaintiff No.1 was aged about 21 years at the time of filing of the suit; by the date of death of the deceased, she was aged about 19 years and she lost her husband at her young age. The plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents and were depending upon the deceased, also lost their livelihood. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased died due to electrocution because of the negligence of the staff of the defendants.

17. After careful consideration, the trial Court properly appreciated the evidence. There is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court. I hold that the findings arrived at by the trial Court are correct and no justifiable reasons have been shown by the appellants/defendants for arriving at a different conclusion. I agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court.

18. The appellants contended that the trial Court awarded a rate of interest of 12% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, which is not sustainable under law. It is settled that “the use of the word ‘may’ in Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, confers a discretion on the Court to ‘award’ or ‘not to award’ or to award interest at such rate as it deems fit”.

                  In ascertaining the rate of interest, the Courts of law can take judicial notice of both inflation and also the fall in bank lending rates of interest. The steep fall in the bank lending rate of interest can be considered a ground for reducing the post-litigation interest from 12% per annum. This Court is of the view that if the interest rate is unconscionable and usurious, the Appellate Court has the power to reduce the interest rate from what was granted by the trial Court. As per Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, post-decree interest shall not exceed 6% per annum on the principal sum. If the liability arises from a commercial transaction, post-decree interest can exceed 6%, but cannot surpass the contractual rate or the Nationalized Bank lending rate.

19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as narrated supra, this Court is of the view that the trial Court is not justified in granting interest at 12% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. Given the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. However, the plaintiffs are entitled to a simple rate of interest of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

20. Point No.2:

                  Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit?

                  In view of my findings as stated supra, the findings arrived at by the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence in this case are, therefore, correct and do not call for interference except with the rate of interest as indicated above.

21. In the result, the present Appeal Suit is allowed in part by modifying the rate of interest from 12% per annum to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization, and the rest of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Kovvur holds good. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party shall bear its own costs in the appeal suit.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.