Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 990 (RAJ)

Supdt EN. R. S. E. B. Sikar v. Kurda Ram Jat

2017-04-17

JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA

body2017
ORDER : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. Instant first appeal is directed against judgment & decree dt 28.9.1999 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff respondents has been decreed in part. 2. Brief facts noticed are that on 28.8.1998 at about 8:00 AM plaintiff Kurdaram and his son Kishore Kumar were going to their agricultural field in village Gungara (Sikar). Kundraram was behind his son Kishore Kumar and when they reached near the well in their agricultural land, where exists a stray wire to support the electric wire pole, and as soon as Kishore Kumar unknowingly held that stray wire he got electrocuted as current was flowing in it. Kundraram, seeing his son electrocuted, tried to save Kishore Kumar out from the stray wire due to which he also received electric current. Kishore Kumar became unconscious and hearing cries/screams of Kundraram, Shishupal rushed to the place of incident and took injured Kishore Kumar and Kundraram to Kalyan Hospital, Sikar, where Kishore Kumar breathed his last. 3. Plaintiffs being father, mother and wife of deceased Kishore Kumar, filed the present suit against the defendant appellants claiming compensation for the alleged negligence of the appellants. It is claimed in the plaint that Kishore Kumar, aged 16 years, was a student and doing agricultural work with a monthly income of Rs. 5000/-. It was also claimed in the plaint that the amount spent in his medical treatment and performance of last rites is Rs. 50,000/-, and Rs. 6,00,000/- has been claimed by the plaintiffs for mental and physical agony suffered by the family members/plaintiffs and in all Rs. 28,20,000/- has been claimed by the plaintiffs from the appellant department. 4. In their written statement filed on behalf of appellant defendant No. 3 it is alleged that the for getting electric line in their residential hamlet the plaintiffs had unauthorisedly put uninsulated electric wire on the L.T. electric line, and it is a case of electricity theft, which on 28.8.1998 got broken and fell on the ground and while jointing the broken wire negligently, Kishore Kumar got electrocuted on account of which he died and, therefore, the appellant defendants were neither responsible nor negligent for the death of Kishore Kumar and prayed for dismissal of the suit for compensation. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, 3 issues were framed, including the issue of relief. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, 3 issues were framed, including the issue of relief. Both the parties led respective evidence and after hearing the parties, learned trial court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to be paid jointly and severally by the appellant defendants and out of the awarded sum the trial court directed to deposit Rs. 25000/- each in favour of the plaintiffs in recurring account in bank with certain other directions. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment & decree, the appellants filed this first appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended, inter alia, that the decree of the learned trial court is wrong, erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law, as the appellants cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased and even no negligence has been proved. Learned counsel also contended that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board has not been impleaded as a party to the suit and the suit filed against the officers of the Board alone is per se not maintainable, however, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial court and, therefore, the judgment and decree is liable to be set aside and the amount awarded has been arbitrarily arrived at by the learned trial court. 8. No one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record. 10. It is not disputed that the deceased died on account of electrocution. The plaintiffs have lost their son and husband, which is an irreparable loss to them. The trial court has taken into consideration elaborate evidence recorded of the witnesses and found flaw in the statements of the officials of appellant company and admission too about loose wire by PW.2 Gopal, and to get it repaired in the morning and found negligence of the officials which has not been negated by any evidence by the appellants. 11. Though the appellants tried to shift burden on the respondent about loss of theft of electricity as villagers do try to take lines directly but it appears no action was taken by the officials and now after incident and death of Kishore Kumar, to cover up, this story has been built. 12. 11. Though the appellants tried to shift burden on the respondent about loss of theft of electricity as villagers do try to take lines directly but it appears no action was taken by the officials and now after incident and death of Kishore Kumar, to cover up, this story has been built. 12. The story of electricity theft is frequent/rampant and widely known to the officials and it is not only in villages but in cities, as well, and there is tremendous loss to the exchequer at the expense of genuine consumers. But no serious efforts are put in by the various Electricity Boards, now bodies like Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and similar Boards to curb this menace. Though the present appeal stands dismissed but this court calls upon the Chairman/Managing Directors of various Vidyut Vitran Nigams/Electricity Boards to file affidavits in this regard and so also action taken by them against erring people who have effected electricity theft. Let copy of this judgment be sent to all Vidyut Vitran Nigam/Electricity Boards within the jurisdiction of this court to come out with facts and figures in this regard and action taken within two weeks. 13. The compensation granted by the trial court in the facts & circumstances of the case, is not required to be interfered with by this court as it is quite meagre and not at all excessive or unreasonable. 14. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Let copy of this judgment be forwarded to respondents for information. 15. However, let the matter be listed again on 24.5.2017 for compliance of observations made in para 12 hereinbefore.