Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 805 (RAJ)

Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Smt. Sukiya

2000-07-12

AMARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.7.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali in Civil Suit No. 53 of 1992 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for Rs. 1,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of suit till the date of realisation. 3. The facts leading to this appeal are summarised as under : The plaintiff-respondents filed the civil suit No. 53 of 1992 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bali. According to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs were dependent upon deceased Jor Bharti, who used to cultivate the fields of Vardha Bharti. The defendants had installed electric pole in the agricultural field belonging to Vardha Bharti. The electric lines were running over the field. In the first week of August, 1992, an electric wire was broken and it fell on the ground. An information was given to the Lineman Megha Ram and he went on the spot. He told that the broken wire was 'earth wire' and the same did not pose any danger. No action was taken by the defendants for repairing the broken wire. On 10.8.1992 at about 5.30 p.m. when Jor Bharti went to his field to take his bullocks, he came into contract with broken earth wife, which was lying in the field. He received electric shock and died. 4-5. The First Information Report was lodged at the police station, Rani on 11.8.1992 at 1.00 A.M. by one Dhanna Ram. An inquiry under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code was conducted by the Police Officer and he inspected the site and prepared site inspection note. On the spot, Memo of Condition of the dead body was prepared. Post mortem report of the dead body was prepared by the Medical Officer, Pali on 11.8.1992. It was found that Jor Bharti son of Vardha Bharti died due to electric shock.6. The respondent-plaintiffs filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bali and claimed Rs. 5,50,000/- by way of compensation. The suit was contested by the defendants. A written statement was filed by behalf of the defendants. It was found that Jor Bharti son of Vardha Bharti died due to electric shock.6. The respondent-plaintiffs filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bali and claimed Rs. 5,50,000/- by way of compensation. The suit was contested by the defendants. A written statement was filed by behalf of the defendants. In para 4 of the written statement, it was pleaded that on 1.8.1992 the earth wire of electric line which has been installed in the field of deceased Jor Bharti, did not fall on the ground but the same was fell on the ground after 10.8.1992 on account of heavy rain and storm. It was further stated in the written statement that the Lineman Megharam had visited the spot and he made it clear that there was no electric current in the broken earth wire. However, the lineman Megharam had removed this earth wire from the ground, so that no accident could be caused. In para 5 of the written statement it was alleged that on 10.8.1992, the earth wire was not broken and neither the deceased Jor Bharti had gone to take his bullocks nor he died after contacting the 'earth wire'. The defendants prayed that suit be dismissed.7. The learned trial Court framed the following seven issues : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are members of same family and plaintiff No. 1 is natural guardian of minor plaintiffs No. 4 to 7 ? 2. Whether the Bera Barva and agricultural land measuring 45 Bighas are situated in Village Kharda Tehsil Desuri, and the Khatedari was registered in the name of plaintiff No. 4 ? 3. Whether the overhead electric line passes through the land belonging to the plaintiffs ? 4. Whether the overhead electric line was broken on 10.8.1992 and the defendant-authorities instead of information having been given to them, have not taken action to repair the same ? 5. Whether Jor Bharti died on 10.8.1992 after coming into contact with electric line, which had fallen on the ground due to negligence of the defendant-authorities ? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs 5,50,000/- as claimed by them in para 8 of the plaint ? 7. Reliefs. 8. AW-1 Smt. Sukhiya, AW-2 Uma Shankar and AW-3 Manaram were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also filed documents Ex. 1 to 8 in evidence. 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs 5,50,000/- as claimed by them in para 8 of the plaint ? 7. Reliefs. 8. AW-1 Smt. Sukhiya, AW-2 Uma Shankar and AW-3 Manaram were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also filed documents Ex. 1 to 8 in evidence. After hearing arguments and taking into consideration the evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants, the learned trial Court decided issues No. 1 to 6 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and decreed the suit for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit to the date of realisation.9. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the instant case, there is no evidence to show that there was negligence on the part of the defendants in the maintenance of electric lines. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the judgment and decree be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment and decree and prayed for the dismissal of appeal with costs.10. In view of the pleadings contained in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, the first question which arises for decision is whether the deceased Jor Bharti died on account of electric shock. The defendants in their written statement have stated that the earth wire was broken on 10.8.1992. Certified copies of the documents prepared by the police have been produced in evidence and they have been marked as Ex.1 to 8. Ex.8 is the post mortem report, which shows that an autopsy on the dead body of Jor Bharti was conducted on 11.8.1992 and it was found that he died due to electric shock. The deceased revealed six injuries which have been described in the post-mortem report. The Memo of Condition of the dead body was prepared by the police before the post mortem was conducted. Ex.4 shows that several injuries were found due to electric shock on the dead body. Ex.1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R. which shows that the FIR was lodged by Dhanna Ram at PS Rani on 11.8.1992 at 1.00 a.m. In this Report, it was stated that Jor Bharti died on account of electric shock on 10.8.1992. Ex.4 shows that several injuries were found due to electric shock on the dead body. Ex.1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R. which shows that the FIR was lodged by Dhanna Ram at PS Rani on 11.8.1992 at 1.00 a.m. In this Report, it was stated that Jor Bharti died on account of electric shock on 10.8.1992. Time of death of Jor Bharti is mentioned 5.30 p.m. Ex.1 is the certified copy of the report submitted by the police to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. This report further shows that Jor Bharti died on account of electric shock received by him. The evidence of AW-1 Smt. Sukhiya, AW-2 Uma Shanker and AW-3 Mana Ram shows that Jor Bharti died on account of electric shock received by him when he came in contract with electric wire, which was lying on the ground after it was broken. In view of the evidence produced by the plaintiffs, there can be no escape from the conclusion that Jor Bharti died on account of electric shock received by him.11. Whether Jor Bharti had received electric shock by coming into the contract with electric wire or received electric shock in any other manner is not open to any doubt. AW-3 Mana Ram stated in the examination-in-chief that 7-8 days before the death of Jor Bharti, the electric wire was broken and the electric line passes through has agricultural field. Megha Ram visited the site on the next day and he was told to repair. Megha Ram said that there was no danger as it was earth wire. It is stated by Mana Ram AW-3 that Megha Ram did not repair and on the date of occurrence at about 6 p.m. he heard cries near Bera Barva. He went to the field of Jor Bharti and found that Jor Bharti died on account of electric current. His body was lying on the ground. Later on, his dead body was taken to Bera Barva on a cot. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he was standing at a distance of 50 paces from the field of Jor Bharti and the place where Jor Bharti was lying was visible to him. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to show that he is speaking a lie. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he was standing at a distance of 50 paces from the field of Jor Bharti and the place where Jor Bharti was lying was visible to him. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to show that he is speaking a lie. The evidence of AW-1 Smt. Sukhiya and AW-2 Uma Shanker further shows that dead body of Jor Bharti was found near the broken electric wire. This fact is also proved by the papers prepared by the police. The fact that the dead body of Jor Bharti was found near the broken electric wire soon after his death and that, his death had been caused by electric current, leaves no room for doubt that the electric shock which proved fatal was received by him when he came into contact with broken electric wire lying in the field. I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that death of Jor Bharti was on account of electric shock received by him from coming into the contact with broken electric wire of the line installed by the defendant- appellants in his field.12. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the appellants in installing or maintaining the electric line and in case the wire was broken was earth which did not carry current at all. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondents. In view of the evidence produced the plaintiffs, it is proved that Jor Bharti received electric shock by coming into the contact of the broken wire. If the broken wire which gave electric shock to the deceased, was in fact carrying current then it would be of little consequence whether it was earth wire or was the wire carrying positive current. It was the responsibility of the State Government to install electric line properly and look after its maintenance properly, so that the lives of the persons who might come in the contract of the electric wire might not be harmed.13. The statement of NAW-2 Megha Ram shows that he received information about the death of Jor Bharti on the next day. He came to know Jor Bharti, who died on account of electric current received by him from broken electric wire. The statement of NAW-2 Megha Ram shows that he received information about the death of Jor Bharti on the next day. He came to know Jor Bharti, who died on account of electric current received by him from broken electric wire. He went to the spot and found that the electric wire of length about 100 ft. was lying on the ground in between two poles. He went to the site where the broken electric wire was lying on the ground. NAW-2 Megha Ram stated that he made an oral Report to the Junior Engineer R.S.E.B. on the third day when the went to Rani. He told the Junior Engineer that Jor Bharti had died on receiving electric current. There is nothing in the statement of NAW-2 Megha Ram to support the version made in the written statement that Jor Bharti did not receive electric shock or that there was not negligence on the part of the appellants or its authorities in maintaining the electric line.14. It was the duty of the defendants-appellants to install electric wires of adequate strength and to carry out proper maintenance of the electric line. If they failed to perform this duty, they must be liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of deceased. In Parvati Devi and others v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others, reported in 2000(3) SCC 754 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed : "The appellants moved the High Court of Delhi claiming compensation as the husband of appellant 1 died on account of electrocution while walking on the road. That the death was on account of electric shock is established in view of the CFSL report from Calcutta. But as the appellants could not produce relevant materials indicating the negligence of any particular officer of the authority, the High Court refused to award compensation. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed. Once it is established that the death occurred on account of electrocution while walking on the road, necessarily the authorities concerned must be held to be negligent and therefore, in the case in hand, it would be NDMC who could be responsible for the death in question....." 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved that the defendant-appellants were negligent in installing the electric wires of adequate strength and in carrying out proper maintenance thereof.16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved that the defendant-appellants were negligent in installing the electric wires of adequate strength and in carrying out proper maintenance thereof.16. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed with costs. However, the learned Additional District Judge, Bali has allowed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit to the date of realisation. Under Section 34, Civil Procedure Code the learned trial Court can award such interest as it deems fit from the date of institution of the suit to the date of decree but for the period commencing from the date of the decree to the date of realisation, there does not appear any discretion to award interest at a rate more than 6% per annum, on the principal amount. In view of this, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is modified to the extent that interest on the amount of compensation shall be payable at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of suit to the date of decree and for the period commencing from the date of the decree to the date of realisation, the interest shall be payable at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realisation. Subject to above modification of the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal is dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******