HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 157/2009
1. Chairman, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer
2. Supdt. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Sikar
3. Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Ringus
4. Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
Palsana
5. Junior Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Palsana
----Appellants
Versus
1. Gulabi Devi W/o Ramesh Kumar Arya, R/o Dhani Koria Ki
Tan, Juratadha Tehsil And Distt. Sikar Rajasthan
2. Suresh Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar Arya, R/o Dhani Koria
Ki Tan, Juratadha Tehsil And Distt. Sikar Rajasthan
3. Ku. Anita, Minor D/o Ramesh Kumar Through Their
Mother Smt. Gulabi Devi, R/o Dhani Koria Ki Tan,
Juratadha Tehsil And Distt. Sikar Rajasthan
4. Ku. Sangita, Minor D/o Ramesh Kumar Through Their
Mother Smt. Gulabi Devi, R/o Dhani Koria Ki Tan,
Juratadha Tehsil And Distt. Sikar Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.N. Sandu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Takhat Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 11/04/2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : April _18th_, 2022
BY THE COURT:
1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20-2-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Sikar, in Suit No.156/2005 (Fatal Accident Case), whereby and (Downloaded on 18/04/2022 at 08:40:24 PM) (2 of 11) [CFA-157/2009] whereunder the suit claiming compensation has been decreed and allowed compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- to plaintiffs against the defendant AVVNL on account of death of Ramesh Kumar Arya, plaintiffs's husband and father due to electrocution.
2. Respondents have filed an application for disbursement of compensation amount, however, the impugned award was passed on 20-2- 2008 and this first appeal is pending since 2009, with the consent of counsel for both parties, appeal itself has been heard finally on merits.
3. The facts of the case are that respondents plaintiffs (hereafter `the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit under Section 1(a) of the Fatal Accident Act, claiming compensation on account of accidental death of Ramesh Kumar Arya, who died on 7-7-2004 because of electrocution, at 7.30 AM while he went to start boring machine installed at the well in his field he was touched with the wire used for electric pole, in which electric current was passing. Sustaining current Ramesh Kumar became unconscious and was thereafter taken to Government Hospital Palsana, but was declared dead. Since the plaintiff No.1 is a lady, plaintiff No.2 only major son and plaintiffs No.3&4 were minor daughters, they were shocked therefore FIR in this regard could not be lodged immediately, and when they tried to register the report regarding death of Ramesh Kumar, the Police Station Ranoli did not lodge (Downloaded on 18/04/2022 at 08:40:24 PM) (3 of 11) [CFA-157/2009] the report. Therefore, complaint was filed before the court, which under Section 156(3) CrPC forwarded the same to Police Station. It was alleged that out of white insulators fixed on wires one insulator was broken due to which current was passing and many times it passed through wire used for the pole. It was stated that written complaints were made to the electricity department, but the same was not repaired. The deceased was 44 years at the time of incident and was well healthy person. It was claimed that the deceased was a well versed farmer, engaged in milk trade having ten buffaloes and owning Indica car, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. As such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.40,21,000/-.
4. On issuing notices appellants-defendants (hereafter `the defendants') filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and stated that there was no electric connection in the name of deceased Ramesh Kumar, but electric connection was in the name of Hanmana Ram as account No.2304/63. The wire used for the pole was at a safe distance from L-Bracket, as such there was no possibility of current. There was no complaint by deceased regarding electric current in the pole or its connected wire. It was stated that if somebody try to commit theft of electricity there was possibility of electric current. It was further stated that the deceased was (Downloaded on 18/04/2022 at 08:40:24 PM) (4 of 11) [CFA-157/2009] residing in field itself having construed house and was using telephone, TV, Cooler, flour mill machine and other machines, but there was no electric connection in the name of deceased, as such there is possibility of electric current while he was trying to commit theft of electricity. The FIR was also lodged with great delay just to hide true facts and false allegations have been levelled against the department. As such no liability could be shifted upon defendants. It was prayed to dismiss the case of plaintiffs.
5. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed five issues. Plaintiffs examined four witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. Defendants examined two witnesses. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties and decided issues No.1&4 conjointly holding that defendants failed to prove that deceased was using electricity unauthorisedly and that deceased died because of electrocution from the current in the wire used for the pole as there was no insulator fixed and the insulator used for LT line was broken. It was further held that defendants did not properly maintained the supply of electricity due to which fatal accident occurred, as such issue No.1 and 4 were decided in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants. Regarding issue No.3 the trial court held that information (Ex.19) was duly submitted in department on 9-9-2005, thus proper notice was given to defendants and that since defendants have (Downloaded on 18/04/2022 at 08:40:24 PM) (5 of 11) [CFA-157/2009] not taken any plea that since information was given late therefore plaintiffs are not entitled for compensation. Thus, the issue was decided in favour of plaintiffs. Issue No.2, regarding amount of compensation, the trial court considering oral and documentary evidence concluded that in absence of any proof of income Rs.2000/- per month would have spent on his family and applying multiplier of 15 assessed the compensation Rs.3,60,000/- and for pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- provided, thus, assessed the total compensation Rs.3,70,000/-.
Accordingly, vide judgment dated 20-2-2008 the suit was decreed for payment of compensation Rs.3,70,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @ 9% p.a.
6. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree present first appeal has been filed. Vide order dated 4-3-2009, this court directed that entire compensation amount be deposited and kept in FDR, but claimants were allowed to withdraw the interest accrued thereon on monthly or quarterly basis.
7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree as also other material available on record.
8. Learned counsel for defendants has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside as the trial court has not (Downloaded on 18/04/2022 at 08:40:24 PM) (6 of 11) [CFA-157/2009] considered the fact that the deceased sustained electrocution while he was committing theft of electricity. There was no fault in the electric line but the current passed in the wire used for pole while deceased tried to commit theft and that plaintiffs did not inform the incident immediately just to hide the truth. It has been further submitted that trial court has not considered the fact that there was no complaint regarding fault. Therefore findings of the trial court are perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set aside.
9. Per contra, counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that the trial court has considered evidence of both parties and has rightly decided issues according to evidence of parties and has rightly awarded compensation to plaintiffs.
10. Heard. Considered.
11. Having heard learned counsel for parties and considered evidence of both parties it is proved on record that the deceased died due to current passed in the wire used for holding the pole with which the deceased stuck and electrocuted, which fact is proved by evidence of Aw.1 Gulabi Devi, Aw.2 Suresh Kumar, Aw.3 Jagdish Prasad and Aw.4 Banshi Lal and Report Ex.2 prepared by Dr. Laxman Singh Ola, Primary Health Center Palsana. The deceased sustained electrocution from the wire used for the pole as there was no insulator fixed, and the insulator used for LT line was broken since (Downloaded on 18/04/2022 at 08:40:24 PM) (7 of 11) [CFA-157/2009] defendants did not properly maintained the supply of electricity due to which fatal accident occurred. Defendants failed to prove that deceased was using electricity unauthorisedly. Thus issues No.1 and 4 were decided in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants. Issue No.3, regarding information to AVVNL, the trial court held that proper notice information (Ex.19) was duly submitted in department on 9-9-2005, and the issue was decided in favour of plaintiffs. Issue No.2, regarding compensation, the trial court considering oral and documentary evidence awarded compensation of Rs.3,70,000/-.
12. A perusal of impugned judgment indicates that negligence on the part of defendants was proved and therefore compensation has been awarded to plaintiffs. At the site insulators were not properly fixed defendants and they failed to maintain electric supply properly. Once it is established that poles were not proper due to which deceased got electrocuted, the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability comes in play. The defendant AVVNL would be strictly and vicariously liable to compensate persons affected by accidents without being any fault of their and due to negligence on the part of defendants. The issue of negligence on the part of electricity department entitlement compensation to sufferer has been considered by this court in case of Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. (Downloaded on 18/04/2022 at 08:40:24 PM) (8 of 11) [CFA-157/2009] Smt. Sumitra Devi, SB Civil First Appeal No.158/2011, decided on 12-4- 2022, and considering Rules 29 and 77(3) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 relying on judgments in case of Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi [(2000)3 SCC 754] and MP Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar [AIR 2000 SC 551] held that it is the responsibility of Electricity Board to supply electric energy, but 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.
13. In case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar (supra) the Apex Court held that "it is the responsibility of the Electricity Board to supply electric energy, but 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. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. The liability cast on such person is known as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the (Downloaded on 18/04/2022 at 08:40:24 PM) (9 of 11) [CFA-157/2009] 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. The principle of strict liability was considered in paras 8 and 9, which reads thus:-
"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.
9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English Common Law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher [1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330], Blackburn J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision:
"The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."
14. On appreciation of factual and legal position aforesaid, findings of trial court on issues No.1 and 4 are found well within jurisdiction and parameters of law, which do not suffer from any perversity. This is a proved case of plaintiffs where the deceased died due to electrocution because of (Downloaded on 18/04/2022 at 08:40:24 PM) (10 of 11) [CFA-157/2009] negligence on the part of defendant AVVNL in not maintaining the wire of pole in which current was passing due to not fixing insulators. Further according to the principle of strict liability the electricity department is absolutely liable to compensate sufferers. Thus, with regard to findings of issues No.1 and 4, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial court.
15. Similarly, defendant AVVNL failed to prove the theft of electricity by deceased and that deceased died because of negligence on the part of defendants. Therefore, the issue No.2 has rightly been decided against defendants.
16. Issue No.4 pertaining to assessment of quantum of compensation has been decided taking into account the income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and after deduction of 1/3 amount for deceased himself, assessed the amount to be spent by deceased for his family Rs.2000/- and applying multiplier of 15 assessed the compensation including Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. Since there is no counter appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation so awarded by the trial court.
17. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court requires no interference by this court and the same (Downloaded on 18/04/2022 at 08:40:24 PM) (11 of 11) [CFA-157/2009] deserves to be upheld and is upheld. There is no force in the first appeal filed by defendants appellants AVVNL and the same is accordingly dismissed.
18. The amount of compensation deposited by appellants kept in FDR be disbursed to plaintiffs in terms of the judgment of the trial court.
19. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
20. Record of the trial court be sent to trial court for completion of the exercise of disbursement of compensation amount.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J.
Arn/81 (Downloaded on 18/04/2022 at 08:40:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)