Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 286 (JK)

State Of J. &K. v. Mursa Begum

2007-12-26

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2007
1. The appellant/defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 25th July, 2000, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Ramban, in a Civil Suit, titled as "Mst. Mursa Begum & Others V/S State, file No.l7/Civil, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. It is necessary to notice the brief facts of the case herein, the womb of which, has given the birth to the instant appeal. 3. Plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit before the trial Court with the prayer that a decree for an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/-(Rupees One Lac Ninety Thousand only), as compensation, be passed in their favour and against the defendant/appellant on the grounds taken in the memo of plaint. 4. It is averred in the plaint that the deceased, Abdul Rashid, aged 35 years, was only bread earner of their family and plaintiffs/respondents were dependent on him. In the year 1993, the power supply was disconnected to the village of the plaintiffs/respondents from March, 1993 to 20.07.1993. The defendant/appellant without any information or notice to the concerned villagers/consumers connected power supply. On the unfortunate day, the deceased, Abdul Rashid, who was sitting in the Varandah of his house, got electrocuted, because the service line fell upon him. The FIR was lodged on 21.07.1993 in Police Station, Batote, being No. 15. The appellant/defendant/department assured the plaintiffs/respondents that the compensation will be paid to them, but the defendant failed to make the compensation and they were constrained to file a civil suit for compensation to the amount of Rs. 1,90,000/-. The appellant/defendant has also filed the written statement. The following issues came to be framed on 02.01.1997: - (1) "Whether Abdul Rashid deceased husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 minors died on 20.7.1993 because of electrocution as the electric department Batote charged the electric supply without information and notice to the villagers of Dharamoon, Batote, Teh. Ramban when the electric line and poles had fallen in March, 1993 and the power had been disconnected to the village with effect from March, 1993 to 20.7.1997, thus the death of Abdul Rashid has been caused because of the negligence of the electric department? O.P.P. (2) Whether the electric department had assured the plaintiff No. 1 that reasonable compensation will be paid to her thus she did not lodged any criminal case, if so, what is its effect? O.P.P. (2) Whether the electric department had assured the plaintiff No. 1 that reasonable compensation will be paid to her thus she did not lodged any criminal case, if so, what is its effect? O.P.P. (3) What was earning capacity of the deceased per month and to what amount of compensation, the plaintiffs are entitled to? O.P.P. (4) Whether the notice under section 80 CPC has been served upon the Chief Secretary of J&K State by the plaintiff on 7.2.1994? O.P.P. (5) Whether the suit is not maintainable for the reason that the plaintiffs have not specified the person negligent in the case and whether state is not liable for the vicarious liability of his employee? O.P.D. (6) To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?" 5. The plaintiffs/respondents have examined, Mst. Mursa Begum, Habib Ullah and Dr. G.L. Dogra in support of their case/claim. The defendant/appellant has not examined any witness in rebuttal. The evidence of the plaintiffs/respondents came to be closed on 06.04.1999 and the defendant/appellant came to be directed to lead evidence in support of its case. The defendant/appellant failed to examine any witness and ultimately, evidence of the defendant/appellant came to be closed vide Order dated 07.03.2000. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scanning the evidence held that plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lac Eighty Thousand only) with 12% interest, from the date of institution of the suit till its realization and accordingly, decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/defendant filed this appeal in hand. The crux of the matter is that `whether the impugned judgment needs any interference? I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and needs no interference for the following reasons: - Issue No.1. 6. The plaintiffs/respondents have specifically pleaded in Paras No.4 and 5 of the plaint that due to the negligence of the defendant/department deceased was electrocuted and succumbs to the injuries. The Paras No.4 and 5 of the plaint are reproduced, herein-below:- "4. That a legal electrical connection was sanctioned in favour of the deceased in village Dharmoon, Batote, Tehsil Ramban District Doda. The Paras No.4 and 5 of the plaint are reproduced, herein-below:- "4. That a legal electrical connection was sanctioned in favour of the deceased in village Dharmoon, Batote, Tehsil Ramban District Doda. After heavy damage in March 1993 to the wiring system and falling of electric polls, the power was disconnected to the village from 3/93 to 20.7.93 when the Electrical Department, Batote, without any information or notice to the concerned villagers and consumers switched on the connection with the result that the deceased Abdul Rashid who was sitting in the Varandah of his house was electrocuted with the fallen wire of his service line which should have been removed by the staff of the department before switching on the power. A case was registered in the Police Station, Batote vide report No.15 dated 21.7.1993. After conducting the post-mortem, the dead body of the deceased was buried. 5. That at the time of burial the concerned officers of the Electrical Department due to whose negligence the death of the deceased had taken place, assured the plaintiff No. 1 that they will pay reasonable compensation to her. On this assurance the plaintiff No. 1 was restrained to lodge any criminal case against the erring officials." 7. The appellant/defendant has half heartedly admitted the averments (supra) in Para No.4 of the written statement. 8. The defendant/appellant has admitted the cause of death of the deceased and also the fact that there was no electric supply in the village Halderu from 25.4.93 to July, 1993. On the given circumstances, only question is, `whether the defendant/appellant without taking precaution, connected the electric wires and supplied electricity to the village on 20th July, 1993? All the witnesses, examined by the plaintiffs/respondents, deposed in one voice that deceased, Abdul Rashid, died due to electrocution and the death was caused due to the negligence of the appellant/defendant/department. Even the expert i.e. Dr. G.L. Dogra has also deposed that the dead body of deceased, Abdul Rashid, was brought in the hospital, Batote and he conducted the post-mortem and also certified that the death was caused due to electrocution. The evidence of the plaintiff/respondents has remained unrebutted. Thus, the plaintiff/respondents proved by leading cogent evidence that the deceased died due to electrocution and death was caused due to the negligence of the department. The evidence of the plaintiff/respondents has remained unrebutted. Thus, the plaintiff/respondents proved by leading cogent evidence that the deceased died due to electrocution and death was caused due to the negligence of the department. The trial Court has rightly decided the issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendant/appellant. Issue No.2 9. There is ample evidence on the file to the effect that the defendant/appellant/department assured Mst. Mursa Begum, the widow, that the department will engage her one child, but it failed to do so and also the defendant/appellant failed to make the payment of compensation. Hence, the issue No.2 rightly came to be decided in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, by holding that the defendant/appellant has failed to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs/respondents. Issue No. 3. 10. There is evidence on the file that the plaintiffs/respondents proved that the deceased was spending Rs. 1500/- for maintenance of the family i.e. plaintiffs/respondents. The trial Court after scanning the evidence held that the deceased was earning Rs. 1500/- per month and the plaintiffs/respondents were deprived of the said income and also held that they lost the source of dependency. The trial Court has also rightly held that age of the deceased was 45 years on the date of accident and applied multiplier of 15 in order to assess compensation and accordingly, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lac and Eighty Thousand only). I am of the considered view that finding recorded by the trial Court is not illegal/erroneous. Viewed thus, the issue No. 3 came to be rightly decided. Issue No.4 11. The onus of this issue was on the plaintiffs/respondents, the copy of the notice/annexure-A is on the plaint, the defendant/appellant has not specifically denied the compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 80 of CPC i.e. serving of notice, thus, issue No.4 also came to be rightly decided. Issue No.5 12. The defendant/appellant has not examined any witness in support of its case. Accordingly, this issue came to be rightly decided in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendant/appellant. 13. Keeping in view of the above discussion and record of the trial Court, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment/decree is well-reasoned and needs no interference. Accordingly, the judgment/decree is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.