Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chairman, M.P.S.E.B., Jabalpur & ... vs Smt.Vidhya & Anr. on 5 October, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 5th OF OCTOBER, 2023
FIRST APPEAL No. 249 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1. CHAIRMAN, MADHYA PRADESH
STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
JABALPUR.
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.P.
STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VANGANGA, SHIVPURI, MADHYA
PRADESH.
........APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI K.N. GUPTA LEARNED
SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
RINKU SHAKYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. VIDHYA W/O HARGOVIND DHAKAD,
AGED 37 YEARS.
2. HARGOVIND DHAKAD S/O MANNU
DHAKAD, AGED 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURALRIST,
BOTH R/O VILLAGE MANIYAR,
PARAGANA AND DISTRICT SHIVPURI,
MADHYA PRADESH.
........RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NAKUL KHEDKAR-
ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following: :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 07-10-2023
10:52:19 AM
2
ORDER
This appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been preferred by
appellants/defendants against the judgment dated 14-07-2004 passed by
Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Shivpuri (M.P.) in case
no.5A/2004.
Facts giving rise to present appeal in short are that
respondents/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit to recover the amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the death of plaintiffs' son Gajraj due to
electrocution on 31.12.2002. At the time of accident, deceased was aged
about 19 years and earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing labour work.
Upon service of notice, defendant no.1 appeared before the Court
and filed its written by denying the contents of plaint allegation and
stated that there was no line of the defendants on the spot rather on
account of service line of consumer, the accident occurred.
Learned trial Court framed as many as three issues and directed
both the parties to lead their evidence.
Learned trial Court after recording of evidence of both the parties
partly allowed the appeal filed by respondents/plaintiffs and awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,01,000/- with interest.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the order impugned
passed by the trial Court is against the settled principles of law as well
as material available on record, therefore, the same is liable to be set-
aside. It is further argued that the learned trial Court erred in passing the
decree against the defendant no.1. It is further argued that learned trial
Court fell in error in not considering that main line belonging to board
was one ferruling way from the so-called incident and there was no
service line. On the place of so-called incident as such for any incident
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 07-10-2023
10:52:19 AM
occurred due to service line wire, the Board cannot be responsible. It is
further argued that trial Court also erred in considering that due to
negligence of boy, the incident occurred. Learned trial Court has not
assessed the income properly ignoring the evidence on record. It is
further argued that learned trial Court erred in considering the statement
of (PW-1) Vidhya (mother of deceased) who stated that agricultural
operation is going by Hargovind which shows that there was no loss of
agricultural operation. Learned trial Court has also erred in considering
that in the wire fencing current was flown by the owner itself to save his
crops from animal and with the object current was passed in fencing
wire as such for the said act either the deceased was responsible or
owner of fencing wire, therefore, the impugned award be set aside.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents supported the
impugned award passed by learned trial Court and argued that the
learned trial Court has rightly awarded the compensation, hence, present
appeal deserves to be dismissed having no merits.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On perusal of record reveals that plaintiffs have examined (PW-1)
Vidhya Bai (mother of deceased), (PW-2) Vijay Singh (eye-witness),
(PW-3) Hargovind Dhakad (father of deceased), (PW-4) Bhagirath in
support of his case. On the other hand, defendants have examined (DW-
1) Sanjay Singh Bhadoriya - Assistant Engineer, M.P.E.B., Shivpuri.
The unrebutted testimony of plaintiff witness as well as post mortem
report Exh.P/1, Panchnama Exh.P/2, Map Panchyat Exh.P/3, Premature
Death Information report Exh. P/4 which is proved that deceased-
Gajraj son of (PW-1) Vidhya Bai & (PW-3) Hargovind Dhakad died on
account of electrocution. The deceased got electrocuted due to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 07-10-2023
10:52:19 AM
electrification in the fencing wire on the field of his father. Appellants/
defendants have failed to prove that in the fencing wire current was
flown by the owner itself to save his crops from animal. The evidence of
plaintiff witnesses clearly indicates that electric wire got broken from
the electric pole and fell on the fencing wire of the field of plaintiff.
(PW-2) Vijay Singh is the eye-witness who saw the incident. This
witness has corroborated the case of plaintiff and deposed that on
31.12.2002, the electric wire got broken and fell on the fencing of field
of (PW-3) Hargovind Dhakad (father of deceased). The evidence of this
witness remain unchallenged and nothing emerged in his cross-
examination to raise doubt over his statement.
Consequently, the Court below has not erred in holding that the
death of deceased Gajrar Singh was on account of negligence of
appellants/defendants. The defendants have not examined any witness
to prove that deceased Gajraj died on his own negligence while starting
the tube-well.
So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, on the basis
of evidence adduced, it is proved that deceased Gajraj Singh was aged
about 19 years at the time of accident and he was unskilled agricultural
labour. Therefore, the Court below has rightly assessed his income as
Rs.25-30/- per day and Rs.12,000/- per annum. The assessment on other
head is also appropriate.
In view of facts and circumstances of the case as well as on going
through the documents available on record, it is evident that the
impugned order passed by the Court below does not appear to be
perverse, illegal and against the settled principle of law.
Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and on careful
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 07-10-2023
10:52:19 AM
perusal of the impugned order passed by court below, this Court finds
no reason to interfere in the instant appeal for want of any illegality or
irregularity.
Consequently, appeal being sans merits is hereby dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV )
JUDGE
Vpn/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 07-10-2023
10:52:19 AM
