Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 747 (MP)

Junior Engineer, Mpseb v. Kishanlal

2012-07-24

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT : The appellants/defendants have directed this appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31-3-2006 passed by II Addl. District Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat in Civil Original Suit No. 14-A/2005 decreeing the suit of the respondents filed for compensation/damages regarding death of their son Roshanlal on account of electrocution due to negligence of the appellants/department. Such suit has been decreed for the sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-with interest @ 6% P.A from the date of filing the suit i.e. 3-9-2005 so also the cost of the litigation. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein filed a suit against the appellants contending that on dated 14-6-2004 at about 5.30 in the morning their son Roshanlal accompanied with his sister-in-law Hemlata, was going towards the field to collect the Gulli (Mahua). On the way near Daitbarra Bus-Stop, some live electric wire of the appellants/department was lying on the road as the same was broken. It being early morning, there was some darkness so deceased Roshanlal could not see the aforesaid electricity wire lying on the road and consequently he came into the contact of the same resultantly he sustained the electric shock and died on the spot. As per further averments such electricity line was not properly looked-after and maintained by the officials of the appellants/department and, in the lack of proper repairing, such wire was broken and laid on the road and thereby the appellants/department has committed grave negligence on the part of their duties. Roshanlal was aged 21 years on the date of the incident and was working as Mason @ Rs. 150/- per day. In such premises, he was earning Rs. 54000/- per year and he was the only person to lookafter his parents respondents No. 1 and 2 in their old age. If Roshanlal had not died in the alleged incident, he would have lived upto the age of 70 years and, in such premises, he could have helped respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Besides this, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also suffered the mental and physical agony due to death of their son. They also spent some amount in performing his last rites. With these pleadings, the suit for compensation/damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- was filed against the appellants. 3. 1 and 2. Besides this, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also suffered the mental and physical agony due to death of their son. They also spent some amount in performing his last rites. With these pleadings, the suit for compensation/damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- was filed against the appellants. 3. In the written statement of the appellants, by denying the averments of the plaint it is stated that the alleged incident was not happened because of the negligence of any official of the appellants/department but the same was happened because of natural calamity and act of God. On the date of the incident there was heavy rain-fall and lightening and due to which the installed insulator of such place got burnt and fell down on the 11 KV line consequently such line was broken and laid on the road. On account of act of God or natural calamity, the incident was happened and, therefore, no liability of the alleged compensation could be saddled against the appellants or its officials and prayer for dismissal of the suit is made. 4. Respondent No. 3 was impleaded as formal defendant in the matter. In spite of service of the notice to such respondent, no written statement was filed on its behalf and ultimately the case proceeded ex parte against it. 5. In view of the pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were framed and evidence was recorded, on appreciation of the same, by holding that the alleged incident in which Roshanlal died was the cause and consequence of negligence of the officials of the appellants/department, after assessing the compensation, the suit was decreed in part for the sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- and interest on it as stated above. Being dissatisfied with such judgment and decree, the appellants have come to this Court with this appeal. 6. Shri Sameer Seth, learned appearing counsel for the appellants after taking me through the record including the evidence led by the parties argued that on proper appreciation, the impugned suit of the respondents No. 1 and 2 ought to have been dismissed by the trial Court. 6. Shri Sameer Seth, learned appearing counsel for the appellants after taking me through the record including the evidence led by the parties argued that on proper appreciation, the impugned suit of the respondents No. 1 and 2 ought to have been dismissed by the trial Court. In addition, he said that the alleged incident was happened due to the natural calamity and the act of God and not by any negligent act on the part of any official of the appellants so under the law of tort, the appellants could not be held to be responsible to compensate respondent No. 1 and 2 regarding death of their son. Besides this, he also argued that the sum decreed by the trial Court, in the available factual matrix, is very higher side and, in any case, if the findings of the trial Court holding the liability of the alleged incident against the appellants is affirmed in this appeal then such sum requires some reduction and prayed for dismissal of the suit of the respondents by allowing this appeal. 7. Shri Sanjay Jain, learned appearing counsel of the respondents, responding the aforesaid arguments said that the findings and the approach of the trial Court being based on proper appreciation of the evidence, does not require any interference at this stage. In continuation, he said that in view of the principle of "strict liability", the appellants cannot escape from the liability to pay the compensation. In support of such contention, he placed his reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of M. P. Electricity Board vs. Shall Kumar and others, 2002(2) MPHT 324 (SC) and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 8. Having heard the counsel keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. After perusing the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, I have not found any infirmity in appreciation of the evidence in the impugned judgment. 9. In order to prove the case on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiff as many as four witnesses have been examined. On recording the deposition of respondent No. 1 Kishanlal (PW 1), he categorically supported the aforesaid incident along with the factual circumstance in which his son Roshanlal had sustained the electric shock from the live electric wire which was lying on the road. 1 and 2/plaintiff as many as four witnesses have been examined. On recording the deposition of respondent No. 1 Kishanlal (PW 1), he categorically supported the aforesaid incident along with the factual circumstance in which his son Roshanlal had sustained the electric shock from the live electric wire which was lying on the road. He also deposed that his son, at the time of death, was working as mason and was earning Rs. 150/- per day from such profession. On going through his cross-examination, I have not found any material thing destroying the version of this witness stated by him in his in-chief. The eye-witness of the incident who was accompanied with the deceased at the time of the incident, namely, Hemlata (PW 2), on recording her deposition has categorically stated that on the aforesaid date and time she and her brother-in-law Roshanlal were going to collect Gully (Mahua) towards some field. On the way near Daitbarra Bus-stop, the live electricity wire was lying on the way and due to darkness of early morning, his brother-in-law could not observe such wire and unfortunately he came into the contact of the same resultantly after sustaining the shock of electricity, he sustained the burn injuries on his person and died on the spot. In her cross-examination, I have not found any material thing destroying the version stated by her in her in-chief. The averments regarding earning of the deceased Rs. 150/- per day has been proved by Shivaji (PW 3) who was working with the deceased as labourer. In his cross-examination also I have not found any material thing destroying the version stated by him in his in-chief Roshanlal had died due to electrocution has also been proved by Dr. Ravindra Tathod (PW 4) who carried-out the autopsy of the deceased and prepared the post-mortem report (Ex.P/1). He categorically stated that the deceased died due to electric shock/electrocution. 10. On behalf of the appellants, in rebuttal, the witness P. K. Sahu (D.W.I) the Asst. Engineer, in his deposition has proved the panchnama dated 14-6-2004 (Ex.D/1) stating that due to lightening from the sky, the pin insulator got burnt, consequently the electric wire was broken and fell down on the way and due to this natural calamity, the alleged incident was happened. Engineer, in his deposition has proved the panchnama dated 14-6-2004 (Ex.D/1) stating that due to lightening from the sky, the pin insulator got burnt, consequently the electric wire was broken and fell down on the way and due to this natural calamity, the alleged incident was happened. Some statements of the witnesses, namely, P. K. Sahu, Chetanlal Katare, and Ganesh Prasad recorded by officials of the electricity board and the spot map prepared by the electricity board are exhibited on record from Ex.D/2 to D/6. The witness Chetanlal Katare (DW 2) the Line-man was also examined by the appellants. In his deposition he stated the same thing regarding the alleged incident as stated by the aforesaid witnesses. Besides this, one witness Ganesh Prasad (DW 3) is also examined by the appellants. He also stated that Roshanlal died due to electrocution because he came into the contact of live electric wire which was lying on the road. He also stated that before the incident there was heavy rainfall and lightening. On going through the depositions of all the aforesaid witnesses of the appellants, I have found that each of them has stated that Roshanlal died due to electrocution because he came into the contact of live electric wire laid on the way. On going through the deposition of the witnesses, I have not found anything showing that in the mid-night owning to heavy rainfall and lightening when insulator was burnt and the line was broken and fell on the way then what immediate action was taken by the appellants/electricity board and its officials from the midnight upto the time of the incident i.e. 5.30 in the morning. As such, as per record, no such action was taken by the appellants. It is well known that various persons like Line-man, helper, Asst. Engineers etc. are deployed in the department of the appellants to lookafter and maintain the electric line round O' clock, and in spite that such officials of the appellants had not taken appropriate steps to remove such live electric wire from the place of incident. So, in such premises, there was apparent negligence on the part of the officials of the appellants towards their duties. So, in such premises, there was apparent negligence on the part of the officials of the appellants towards their duties. It is not expected from every citizen especially from the uneducated and illiterate villagers like the deceased that early in the morning before rising the sun, while walking on the way, he could identify the live electric wire laid on the road and, therefore, it could not be said that the deceased himself was responsible for the alleged incident. 11. The electricity board cannot escape from its liability on the ground that the alleged incident was happened because of vis major or the act of God or due to natural calamity and, in such premises, the approach of the trial Court saddling the liability against the appellants to pay the compensation by the impugned decree could not be said to be contrary to the law. 12. For the sake of arguments, if it is deemed that all precautionary measures were taken by the appellants/department and in spite that due to some technical fault, on account of vis major or the act of God or the natural calamity, the alleged incident was happened due to fall of live electric line on the way even then, on account of principle of "strict liability", the appellants/department is liable to pay the compensation. 13. My aforesaid view is fully fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of M. P. Electricity Board vs. Shall Kumar and others, 2002(2) MPHT 324 (SC) in which it was held as under :- "7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the 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 managers of its supply have 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. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension. The managers of its supply have 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. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that some body committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions." 14. So far the quantum of decreed sum is concerned, in view of the available unrebutted evidence regarding income of the deceased Rs. 150/- per day as he was working as mason and, in any case, he was earning Rs. 2000/- per month, the trial Court, on appreciation of the available evidence, has not committed any error or infirmity in passing the decree for compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/-. 150/- per day as he was working as mason and, in any case, he was earning Rs. 2000/- per month, the trial Court, on appreciation of the available evidence, has not committed any error or infirmity in passing the decree for compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/-. In the available circumstances, the same appears to be very reasonable and does not require any interference at this stage of the appeal. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any error, infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of any merits, by affirming the impugned judgment and decree, is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs. Appeal dismissed.