Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1211 (RAJ)

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Sita Devi

2022-04-18

RAMESHWAR VYAS

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present first appeal is being finally decided at admission stage. 2. The instant first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the defendants-appellants -Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited against the Judgment & Decree dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No. 68/2019 titled as ’Smt. Sita Devi & ors. Vs. Jd.V.V.N.L. & ors’, whereby the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents under the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act, 1885 for grant of compensation, was decreed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed a civil suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885 (afterwards referred to as ’the Act of 1885’) seeking compensation against the defendants (appellants herein) as well as Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur (respondent No. 6 herein) alleging inter alia that on account of gross negligence in maintaining the electricity lines by the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, Bhagwandas Valmiki got electrocuted. The plaintiffs in their plaint alleged that on 07.06.2002, Bhagwandas Valmiki (since deceased) was passing through main road near Chili & Garlic Restaurant, Jaljog Choraha, Jodhpur. At around 9.30 P.M., he got electrocuted by an electricity pole on account of negligence of the Jd.V.V.N.L. and the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur in maintaining their electricity lines. The defendants did not maintain the poles and electricity lines properly. The plaintiffs sought compensation of Rs. 35,07,000/- from the defendants under the provisions of the Act of 1885. The defendants filed their written statements and denied that there was any negligency whatsoever, in maintaining the electricity lines. It was pleaded that tubular pole where incident was alleged to have happened was situated on a road divider and there was no passing way near tubular pole. Not only this, the pole was guarded by fencing and therefore, no fault could be assigned so far as maintenance of electricity lines by the defendants was concerned. The trial court, after trial and hearing the arguments of both the parties, passed Judgment & Decree dated 18.03.2021 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents and directed the defendants - Jd.V.V.N.L. and Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur to pay compensation of Rs. The trial court, after trial and hearing the arguments of both the parties, passed Judgment & Decree dated 18.03.2021 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents and directed the defendants - Jd.V.V.N.L. and Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur to pay compensation of Rs. 8,88,652/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the plaintiffs from the date of filing of the suit till realization of money. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 18.03.2021, this first appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants -Jd.V.V.N.L. arraying plaintiffs and Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur as party respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident was suspicious. After the incident, claim was settled by the owner of Chili and Garlic Restaurant, under whom the deceased was employed. The incident took place in front of the restaurant. No independent witness was produced on behalf of the plaintiffs to prove the incident. P.W. 1 - Smt. Sita Devi was wife of the deceased, who was not present on the spot at the time of incident. P.W. 2 - Arjun Singh is not an independent witness. His presence at the time of incident is doubtful. He further submitted that after the incident, line was checked by the officials of the Jd.V.V.N.L. but no fault was found in the line. The pole, where the incident alleged to have happened, was encircled by fencing. Hence, there was no occasion for the deceased to come in contact with the pole. The trial court erred in disbelieving the defence put up by the appellants. The amount of compensation awarded by the trial court is also grossly excessive. He further submitted that after installing the poles and electricity line, it were handed over to the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. It was responsibility of the Corporation to maintain the poles and electricity line. Hence, learned counsel for the appellants prayed to exonerate the appellants from any liability and set aside impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court qua appellants. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that after the incident, no enquiry was conducted by the appellants. Hence, learned counsel for the appellants prayed to exonerate the appellants from any liability and set aside impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court qua appellants. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that after the incident, no enquiry was conducted by the appellants. The witnesses produced on behalf of the defendants also stated in their statements that after the incident, supply of electricity was disconnected, which suggests that the incident took place in the manner as put up by the plaintiffs. He further submitted that P.W. 2 - Arjun Singh saw the incident and there is no reason to discard his testimony. After the incident, matter was reported to the police, who conducted inquest proceedings under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and found the incident true. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants except the argument raised by the appellants that the Municipal Corporation was solely liable for this incident. He contended that supply of the electricity was function of the Jd.V.V.N.L., hence, the Municipal Corporation cannot be held liable, if the plaintiffs are found to be entitled to get compensation. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the trial court as also impugned judgment, this Court finds that incident was reported to the police by father of the deceased on 08.06.2012, upon which, proceedings under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. were conducted. During the proceedings, exhaustive enquiry was made and after enquiry, police came to the conclusion that this incident took place on account of electrocution from electricity pole. The cause of death in the postmortem report of the deceased Bhagwandas was also shown as shock as a result of electric burns. The appellants have failed to rebut the inquest report submitted by the police. It is also pertinent to note that Jd.V.V.N.L. did not conduct any enquiry regarding cause of accident. In absence of any contrary evidence adduced by the appellants - Jd.V.V.N.L., there is no reason to discard the evidence of the plaintiffs-respondents. 9. P.W. 2 Arjun Singh was an eye-witness, who was also employed in the restaurant. He has corroborated the incident. It is also pertinent to note that Jd.V.V.N.L. did not conduct any enquiry regarding cause of accident. In absence of any contrary evidence adduced by the appellants - Jd.V.V.N.L., there is no reason to discard the evidence of the plaintiffs-respondents. 9. P.W. 2 Arjun Singh was an eye-witness, who was also employed in the restaurant. He has corroborated the incident. As per his statement, on 07.06.2012 in the night at 9.45 P.M., Bhagwandas came in contact with electricity pole and on account of electrocution, he died. He informed to the owner of the restaurant, who along with other employees came on the spot and tried to part with Bhagwandas from electricity pole with the help of wooden stick. Bhagwandas was taken to Manidhari Hospital situated nearby, however, they refused to admit him, upon which, he was taken to M.D.M. Hospital. In cross-examination, he stated that there was divider on the road and electricity poles were on the divider with the fencing. During cross-examination, the statement made by P.W. 2 regarding incident taking place could not be controverted. 10. The witnesses produced by the defendants’ side also failed to negate the factum of taking place of the incident in the manner as alleged by the plaintiffs. D.W. 1 Damodar Prasad Dubey, who was Assistant Engineer in Jd.V.V.N.L., came on the spot on the same night. When he reached on the spot, road light was off. As per his statement, someone disconnected the electricity. He also admitted that cover of on & off switch installed on the electricity pole was open. Although, he stated that there was no fault in the electricity line but without any enquiry report on the part of the appellants - Jd.V.V.N.L. and looking to the evidence led by the plaintiffs duly verified by the inquest report under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. prepared by the police, mere statement of this witness cannot be relied upon. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, act of supplying the electricity and maintaining it, is joint liability of the Jd.V.V.N.L. and the Municipal Corporation. The above act being hazardous in nature involving so many risks. The defendants were under obligation to take extra caution so that no untoward incident may happen with any person going on the road. It cannot be expected from a person going on the road to keep distance from the poles at every time. The above act being hazardous in nature involving so many risks. The defendants were under obligation to take extra caution so that no untoward incident may happen with any person going on the road. It cannot be expected from a person going on the road to keep distance from the poles at every time. The poles with boxes and electricity lines should be maintained properly. It is also expected from the electricity supplying authorities to conduct enquiry after happening of such type of incident and fix responsibility of the officials at fault. In the present case, there is no basis to exonerate the appellants and the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur from their responsibility arisen on account of this mishappening. The evidence produced by the plaintiffs supported by the proceedings under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. are sufficient to fasten liability on the defendants. Hence, contention of learned counsel for the appellants raised in this regard is rejected. 12. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the trial court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,88,652/-along with interest @ 9% per annum. The deceased was aged about 30 years. The multiplier for the age group between 26 to 30 years has been applied by the trial court. The trial court assessed compensation under the head of loss of income on the basis of minimum wages for an unskilled labour @ Rs. 3,822/- per month, to which 40% amount of monthly income has been added towards loss of future prospects. The plaintiffs are 5 in number. The appellant No. 1 - Smt. Sita Devi is wife of the deceased, whereas, appellants Nos. 2 to 5 are four minor children of the deceased. Hence, the trial court rightly deducted 1/4th amount from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses while calculating compensation under the head of loss of income. The calculation made by the trial court is just and fair. There is no ground to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial court. However, regarding rate of interest, looking to the prevailing rate of interest in the nationalized banks, interest @ 9% per annum awarded by the trial court is reduced to 6% per annum. 13. The calculation made by the trial court is just and fair. There is no ground to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial court. However, regarding rate of interest, looking to the prevailing rate of interest in the nationalized banks, interest @ 9% per annum awarded by the trial court is reduced to 6% per annum. 13. Resultantly, the present first appeal fails and is dismissed regarding liability of the defendants and quantum of compensation, however, rate of interest awarded by the trial court is modified from 9% to 6% per annum. The judgment and decree dated 18.03.2021 passed by the trial court is affirmed with the modification in the rate of interest from 9% to 6% per annum. The decreetal amount shall be paid by the appellants positively by 31.05.2022.