Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 420 (ORI)

M. D. , CESCO, ELECTRICAL DIVISION v. LATA SAHOO

2008-05-15

SANJU PANDA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 18.1.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhenkanal in Civil Suit No. 24 of 2005. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The Plaintiff filed the suit claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the Appellants-Defendants on the plea that her minor daughter Jhili Sahu who was aged about 12 years, while going to attend the call of nature came in contact with a live 11 K.V. electric conductor which had remained sagging at the spot at a height of 3 to 4 feet from the earth resulting in severe burn injuries to her right hand and multiple injuries all over her body. She was shifted to Bhuban Hospital for treatment and on the advice of the doctor she was referred to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for better treatment, where the doctor found it necessary to amputate her right hand and subject her to plastic surgery. Accordingly, her right hand was amputated and subjected to plastic surgery and for the above treatment the Plaintiff spent Rs. 1 lakh. She further attributed negligence against the Defendants for the unfortunate incident. Prior to the incident, she was having a good health and was a brilliant girl prosecuting her study in Class-VII. After the incident, she was not able to read and write and also unable to perform her day to day work independently. On the above pleadings, Plaintiff claimed Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation from the Defendants. 3. The Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in their written statement while traversing the plea of the Plaintiff pleaded that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and is barred by limitation. They disowned their liability on the ground that they were not at all negligent in maintaining the live electric conductor at the spot and their field staff had performed their routine check up on the previous day and there was no fault in the electric line. They disowned their liability on the ground that they were not at all negligent in maintaining the live electric conductor at the spot and their field staff had performed their routine check up on the previous day and there was no fault in the electric line. Their further plea was that in the previous night some unknown culprits committed theft of the stay which was given to the electric pole at the spot and since there was a heavy rain during that night and there was a theft of the stay, the wire became loose as a result of which the electric pole at the spot tilted downward and the electric line came down to a lower height and the victim girl out of curiosity caught hold of the live electric conductor and got electrocuted. On the above pleadings, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The Court below on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as five issues. In support of their pleas, both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Court below on the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties recorded the following findings. 5. The Defendants were negligent in maintaining the power supply and the victim girl was not at fault. In absence of any specific bar, the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the dispute u/s 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has proved that she has an actual existing interest being the mother of the victim girl for which she has filed the suit for compensation on behalf of her daughter. Taking into consideration the medical expenses and the disability of the victim girl, the learned Civil Judge assessed the compensation at Rs. 3 lakhs and directed that the said amount shall be given to the Plaintiff within three months hence with 8% interest per annum from the date of order till final payment is made failing which the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to get the decree executed through process of the Court. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants vehemently argued that the learned Court below did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case in its proper perspective and did not take into consideration that theft of the stay which was given to the electric pole at the spot was committed in the previous night. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants vehemently argued that the learned Court below did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case in its proper perspective and did not take into consideration that theft of the stay which was given to the electric pole at the spot was committed in the previous night. He submitted that due to heavy rain during the previous night, the poll wire came down to a lower height and out of curiosity the victim girl caught the live electric conductor and got electrocuted. He further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the Defendants in maintaining the electric line. Therefore, the Court below should not have come to a finding that the Defendants are maintaining the electric line properly. On that erroneous impression, he has decreed the Plaintiff's suit which is liable to be set aside. Since the electrocution was caused to the victim was not due to rash and negligent act of the Defendants, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the victim girl was a minor on the date of occurrence and since she has lost her right hand, the Court below has rightly assessed the compensation. He further submitted that the Court below has correctly arrived at the finding that the Defendants were negligent in maintaining the electric line and therefore, the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) need not be interfered with by this Court. 8. This Court, after going through the records and the evidence adduced by the parties, finds that the Plaintiff has duly discharged the burden of proving her claim for compensation as her minor daughter got electrocuted and sustained grievous injuries due to her coming in contact with live electric line resulting in her disability up to 50%. The Appellants-Defendants admitted that they were not aware about the hanging condition of the heavy electric wire till the time of occurrence even though they have stated that they provide 24 hours maintenance for 11 K.V. lines and the Defendants being the supplier of the electricity, they are duty bound to protect the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission, distribution or treating electricity, use of electricity supplied, installation, maintenance or use of any electric line. The Defendants have also not proved that the victim was at fault and the incident was accidental. They have also failed to prove that the electric wire had been properly maintained and wire was in proper condition at the time of incident. The principle of res ipsa loquitur is the rule of evidence whereby the negligence of the alleged wrong doer may be inferred from the fact that the incident happened. The fact itself is sufficient to reveal what has happened. The character of the incident and the circumstances attending it can reasonably be believed that in absence of negligence the accident would not have occurred. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that due to rashness and negligence of the Defendants the accident took place, is hereby confirmed. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant further submits that since the injured was a minor girl and the compensation awarded by the trial Court is at higher side, the same may be reduced taking into consideration the status of the parties. 10. Admittedly, the victim was a minor girl on the date of occurrence and the Plaintiff did not examine the doctor to prove her disability and to assess the compensation. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the social status of the Plaintiff, who resides in a rural area, this Court determines the compensation at Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees to lakhs). The Plaintiff is also entitled to interest at the rate given by the Banks from the date of the Judgment passed by the trial Court, i.e., 18th January, 2007. It is directed that out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand shall be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of the victim girl-Jhili Sahu in any nationalized Bank and the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) along with the entire interest shall be paid to the Respondent-Plaintiff within a period of six months from today. 11. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned Judgment, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.