Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. State Electricity Board & Anr vs Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors on 19 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 19 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
FIRST APPEAL No. 311 of 2002
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH
CHAIRMAN, SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAMPUR, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JUNIOR ENGINEER, RURAL, M.P. STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD, KHURRAI, TEHSIL KHURAI
DISTRICT - SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI MAQBOOL KHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. SAROJRANI, WIDOW OF LATE SHRI RANJOR
SINGH, AGED ABOUT
2. SUNDARI, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, D/O. LATE
RANJOR SINGH (MINOR)
3. KU. MALTI, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, D/O. LATE
RANJOR SINGH (MINOR)
4. SANDEEP, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, S/O. LATE RANJOR
SINGH (MINOR)
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINOR SUED THROUGH
THEIR MOTHER SMT. SAROJRANI, ALL ARE RESIDENT
OF GRAM RENGUA, TEHSIL KHURAI, DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANAND NAYAK - ADVOCATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This first appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code has been
preferred feeling aggrieved by Judgment dated 26.03.2002 by Additional District
Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in Civil Suit No.2-B/2000 whereby a compensation
of Rs.1,11,000/- has been awarded in favour of respondents for the death of
Ranjor Singh due to electrocution.
2. facts in brief are that one Ranjor Singh was died on 15.07.1998 due to
electrocution at about 11:00-12:00 a.m. in village Rengua, Tehsil Khurai, District
Sagar. It was stated that a low tension line of 440 V broken down and Ranjor
Singh came in contact with it and died due to electrocution. Respondent
no.1/plaintiff is the widow of Ranjor singh and respondents/plaintiffs no.2 to 4
are the minor daughters and sons of late Ranjor Singh. They claimed total
compensation of Rs.4,27,000/- from the appellants/defendants.
3. Appellants/defendants filed written statement and denied the allegation
in the written statement. It was specifically stated that the deceased-Ranjor
Singh was having an electric pump and he used to take the electricity illegally by
putting a hook in the low tension line and because of which the sparking took
place and Ranjor Singh died. There was no negligence on the part of the
defendants and the compensation was also calculated on higher side.
4. Trial Court framed total four issues and recorded the evidence of
Sarojrani (PW-1), Jagdish (PW-2), Chain Singh Thakur (PW-3), Dhannalal
(PW-4), Assistant Surgeon Dr. R.K. Patel, Civil Hospital Khurai (PW-5),
Harnam Singh (PW-6), Head Constable Ganesh Shukla (PW-7) and admitted
the documents (Ex.P-1 to P-9).
5. Defendants/appellants examined Lineman Sitaram Parasar (DW-1),
Junior Engineer M.P. Electricity Board Khurai Shri K.S. Ghoshi (DW-2).
6. Trial Court found the issue no.1 in favour of plaintiffs that Ranjor
Singh died due to electrocution and the incident was happened due to
negligence of defendant/appellant no.1 and did not find proved that there was
any negligence of deceased-Ranjor Singh and recorded and also proved the
issue no.3 in favour of plaintiff that plaintiffs are entitled to receive the
compensation for the death of Ranjor Singh from defendants/appellants and
granted the relief as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment and specifically
mentioned in para-31 of the Trial Court judgment.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of Trial Court, this appeal has been
preferred on the ground that Trial Court failed to see that Ranjor died due to
electric shock while he was involving in electricity theft. He was putting a hook
in the law tension line for electric supply for his electric pump and due to
sparking he died. Trial Court has failed to appreciate evidence given by Shri
Sitaram Parasar (DW-1) who was the lineman. Trial Court failed to appreciate
the testimony of S.K. Ghoshi, Junior Engineer (DW-2). Trial Court has awarded
the compensation of higher side.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs supported the judgment and
prayed for dismissal of appeal.
10. Perused the record.
11. Trial Court has recorded the findings in para-19 of the judgment that
4-5 days prior to the incident, electric line of the respondent were broken and a
maintenance work was going on at that time and it was point out to the
defendants/appellants that other line has also been damaged due to fall of tree.
Thereafter, electric line was broken and Ranjor Singh came into contact of wire
and died due to electrocution.
12. Testimony of R.K. Patel (PW-5) has clearly stated that the cause of
death of Ranjor Singh is shock due to electrocution. In PM report (Ex.P-7), it is
stated that burning signs were found on the lower side of chest of the Ranjor
Singh and these signs were three in number, a burning sign was also present on
the right fore arm, right leg and thigh. Testimony of Dr. R.K. Patel (PW-5)
clearly established that cause of death of Ranjor Singh was electric current
flowing through the electric line related to defendants/appellants.
13. Para-3 of S.K. Ghoshi (DW-2) and para-7 of Sitram Parasar (DW-1)
indicate that findings of Trial Court regarding fall of tree on electric line is based
on proper appreciation of evidence. No record has been submitted that
deceased was involved in theft of electricity. It is not brought on record that
deceased was running the electric equipment without electrical connection.
Sitaram Parasar (DW-1) has used the word 'usually'. This word indicates that
his evidence is based only on conjuncture and surmises and not on facts. The
liability of appellants/defendants is strict in the light of M.P. Electricity Board
v. Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162. The relevant para 8 of the judgment is
being referred as under :-
"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."
14. Findings of Trial Court are based on proper appreciation on evidence
and there is no error in holding liable to defendants/appellants. The amount of
award is just and proper.
15. This appeal does not succeed. Hence The First Appeal is
dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
HK
