Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 651 (RAJ)

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd v. Priyanka

2021-03-19

ARUN BHANSALI

body2021
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 22/8/2019 passed by Addl. District Judge No.2, Rajgarh, District Churu, whereby, the suit for compensation filed by the plaintiffs under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 has been decreed and a sum of Rs.10,26,000/- has been awarded as compensation along with interest @ of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, wife & children of deceased Rajesh Kumar, inter alia with the submissions that on 14/7/2016 at about 7 pm when deceased Rajesh Kumar, aged 32 years, was returning back to home from the workshop of his uncle Mani Ram, he came in contact with stay wire of electricity pole on the southern side of the workshop in which current was flowing, to which he succumbed. It was indicated that around the stay wire, rain water had accumulated and the land around it was wet and electric current was flowing therein. As Rajesh Kumar was passing nearby the stay wire, on account of electric current in the wet land, he fell on the stay wire and died on the spot. He was taken to the Government Hospital, where he was declared dead. FIR was lodged and Postmortem was conducted. The doctor and police investigation found the cause of death as electrocution. It was alleged that it was the responsibility of the defendants to maintain the electricity pole, electricity line and stay wire and repair the same from time to time. It was indicated that on several occasions certain persons made complaints, however, same was not repaired and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.1,01,50,000/-. 3. The defendants by filing written statement contested the averments made in the plaint and submitted that no information about death of Rajesh Kumar by electrocution was given. The accident is suspicious and concocted. It was indicated that rains had not started on 14/7/2016 and no water was collected around the stay wire, land was not wet and no electric current was flowing on to the stay wire and in the wet land. The basis for claiming compensation was also denied. In additional pleas, it was indicated that provisions of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ('the Act') were not followed and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4. The basis for claiming compensation was also denied. In additional pleas, it was indicated that provisions of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ('the Act') were not followed and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4. Based on the submissions of the parties, the trial court framed three issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and 17 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that in police report (Ex.1) there were specific indications that Rajesh Kumar died on account of electrocution. The postmortem report (Ex.10) indicated the cause of death as electrocution and as the site map (Ex.8) indicated rain water collected around the electricity pole, the evidence led by the plaintiffs was substantiated and the defendants had failed to produce any material evidence and consequently found that the accident occurred at the alleged placed on account of negligence on the part of defendants. 6. While assessing the quantum of compensation, the trial court by taking the income of the deceased as that of unskilled workman at minimum wages and applying the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 awarded compensation of Rs. 10,26,000/- along with interest, as indicated hereinbefore. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court fell in error in awarding compensation and holding the appellants negligent. Submissions were made that provisions of Section 161 of the Act were not complied with, which deprived the appellants from investigating as to whether the accident occurred in terms of the allegations made and on that count the judgment impugned cannot be sustained. 8. Further submissions were made that it was not proved by any cogent evidence that current in fact was flowing in the stay wire and that the deceased, on account of coming in contact with the stay wire, suffered electrocution and consequential death. 9. 8. Further submissions were made that it was not proved by any cogent evidence that current in fact was flowing in the stay wire and that the deceased, on account of coming in contact with the stay wire, suffered electrocution and consequential death. 9. The above aspect was sought to be emphasized with the submission that in case electric current was flowing in the stay wire on wet land around it, which was a public place, others would have also suffered such current/electric shock, which aspect has not come on record and on that count the entire story sought to be projected cannot be believed and, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment impugned. It was submitted that from the police report and postmortem report, this aspect is not in dispute that Rajesh Kumar died on account of suffering electrocution and from the evidence which was led, it was more than apparent that the accident occurred at the place indicated in the official documents and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised in this regard has no substance. 11. Submissions were made that provisions of Section 161 of the Act are merely procedural and the submission made that for noncompliance of the said provision, the plaintiffs are not entitled for compensation, has no basis. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The provisions of Section 161 of the Act inter alia read as under: "(1) If any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may by general or special order, direct. (2) The Appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector, or any other person appointed by it in this behalf, to inquire and report-- (a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, or (b) as to the manner in, and extent to, which the provisions of this Act or rules and regulations made thereunder or of any licence, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with. (3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub-section (2) shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and every person required by an Electrical Inspector be legally bound to do so within the meaning of section 176 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." 13. A perusal of the above provisions would indicate that the same deals with the inquiry to be conducted by the Electrical Inspector or any person appointed by the appropriate Government into the accident, which may occur in connection with generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity. The provisions do not deal with award of compensation and nowhere provides that in case notice of the occurrence of loss or injury caused by the accident is not given to the Electrical Inspector or to such authority as the appropriate Government may direct, the claimant/injured would not be entitled to compensation and, therefore, in those circumstances merely because the notice allegedly was not given in terms of Section 161 of the Act, the same by itself cannot have any implication on the maintainability of the suit under the Fatal Accidents Act. 14. The submission made that the plaintiffs failed to prove the accident having occurred on account of negligence of the appellants also apparently has no substance. A bare look at the police report (Ex.1) and the postmortem report (Ex.10), as already noticed hereinbefore, clearly indicate the death of Rajesh Kumar on account of suffering electrocution. 14. The submission made that the plaintiffs failed to prove the accident having occurred on account of negligence of the appellants also apparently has no substance. A bare look at the police report (Ex.1) and the postmortem report (Ex.10), as already noticed hereinbefore, clearly indicate the death of Rajesh Kumar on account of suffering electrocution. The accident had occurred at 7 pm on 14/7/2016 and the FIR was lodged on 15/7/2016 at 6.30 am giving out the specific details in this regard and, therefore, also it cannot be said that the report was lodged by way of an afterthought. 15. The plaintiffs on their part, had examined the claimants as well as Mani Ram, who was the first informant and in whose workshop the deceased was working. The site map (Ex.8) clearly indicated collection of rain water around the electricity pole and the stay wire and as such it cannot be said that the plaintiffs on their part have not led evidence in support of the averments made in the plaint. 16. So far as the submissions made on the basis of fact that as alleged location was on the road, if the electric current was flowing therein, others would have also suffered electrocution/shock is concerned, appellants defendants, despite having opportunity to cross examine the plaintiffs' witnesses, have failed to even put the said aspect by way of suggestion to the said witnesses. The total cross examination, which is in few lines, reads as under: P.W.1 Smt. Priyanka 17. In view of the above state of cross examination, the submissions sought to be made in the present appeal cannot be countenanced. 18. In view thereof, the findings recorded by the trial court on issue no. 1 regarding the accident and the negligence on the part of appellants cannot be faulted. 19. The quantum of compensation, as the same is in consonance with the principles laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has rightly not been questioned by the appellants. 20. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.