Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 59 (CHH)

SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, MPEB v. REETA URMALIA

2011-02-11

N.K.AGARWAL

body2011
ORAL ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.07.92, passed by the IVth Addl. District Judge to the court of District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 40-A/1990, whereby the suit filed by the respondents for realization of Rs. 2,40,000/- as compensation was decreed and a sum of Rs. 96,000/- was awarded to the respondents along with interest @ 12 percent per annum from the date of suit, present appeal has been filed. 2. Brief facts in nutshell are that : a suit was filed alleging that the respondents are dependents of deceased Suryabhan, who died on 29.08.1985 at about 8:30 PM when he came in contact with live electric wires which were lying on the Mission Hospital Road, Bilaspur. It was alleged that the accident, in which the deceased Suryabhan died, occurred because the appellant failed in its duty in maintaining the electric line, hence the respondents are entitled for compensation. It was also alleged that the deceased was Pujari in Venkatesh Mandir and was earning Rs. 1000/- per month. 3. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement in which it was not disputed that Suryabhan died due to electrocution. However, it was alleged that the accident occurred because of circumstances beyond human control as it was dark, rainy and stormy evening when the deceased contacted live current wires which may have fallen all of a sudden. It was alleged that electrocution cannot be attributed any fault on the part of the appellant/Board who has taken all possible steps to keep it under proper repair and maintenance. 4. The court below framed issues, recorded evidence and decreed the suit holding appellant/Board negligent in maintaining overhead electric line and decreed the suit awarding a sum of Rs. 96,000/- along with interest @ 12 percent per annum. Hence this appeal. 5. Shri BP Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the accident occurred because of circumstances beyond human control as it was dark, rainy and stormy evening when the deceased contacted live current wires which may have fallen all of a sudden. He would further submit that the rate of interest awarded by the court below is shockingly on higher side which may be suitably reduced. 6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the records of court below. 7. He would further submit that the rate of interest awarded by the court below is shockingly on higher side which may be suitably reduced. 6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the records of court below. 7. The responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality is statutorily conferred on the Electricity Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the Board had the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. 8. It is the lookout of the appellant/Board to install necessary devices, so, in case, any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. The authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. The Board is also liable under the strict liability rule. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. 9. In the instant case, the appellant/Board has utterly failed to discharge its statutorily obligation, it cannot claim exoneration from paying damages in case of a death arising out of the accident by falling of live electric wire on the road. 10. From perusal of the record and also the evidence adduced by the parties, in the considered opinion of this court, the court below, after appreciating the entire evidence in its proper perspective, has rightly passed the award in respondent's favour holding the appellant/Board guilty of negligence. 11. In view of above, this court did not find any scope of interference so far as award of compensation is concerned. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, rate of interest is on higher side, the same is reduced to 10 percent per annum. Now, the respondents are entitled for Rs. 96.000/- as compensation along with interest @ 10 percent per annum from I the date of suit. 12. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, rate of interest is on higher side, the same is reduced to 10 percent per annum. Now, the respondents are entitled for Rs. 96.000/- as compensation along with interest @ 10 percent per annum from I the date of suit. 12. Appeal is allowed in part and decree is modified to the above extent. No order as to costs. 13. Decree be drawn accordingly. Appeal Partly Allowed.