Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Distribution Company Ltd ... vs Gaurav Tiwari on 23 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1340 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
THE DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD (ELECTRICITY)
THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EAST ZONE,
CHANDBAD DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI V.P.TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
GAURAV TIWARI S/O SHRI PRAMOD TIWARI, AGED
ABOUT 18 YEARS, FLAT NO. 405, HARMAN HOMES
INDRAPURI DISTRICT-BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI K.DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 29-04-2017 in RCA No. 65/17 by the Second
Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, District Bhopal
arising out of the judgment and decree dated 14-12-2016 in Civil Suit No. 123-
P/15 by the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-
I, Bhopal.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit
claiming compensation of Rs. 44, 39,800/- due to the injuries caused by
electrocution on 21-02-2013 at 405 Hariman Homes Indrapuri Bhopal due to
which, he was treated in various hospitals for sufficient period and amputation
of both hands caused and he suffered permanent functional disability.
3. The appellant/defendant contested the claim on the ground that the
accident occurred due to negligence of the victim. They received the
compensation of Rs. 28,750/-.
4. The trial Court framed five issues and recorded the evidence of victim
as (PW-1), Pramod Tiwari as (PW-2) and Dr. R. Sharma as (PW-3) and
admitted the documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/18. The appellant/defendant examined
the Additional General Manager of City Circle East Govindpura, Shri Amrit Pal
Singh officer of Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidhut Vitran Company
Limited, Bhopal as (DW-1), M. Kailashnath as (DW-2) and Sanjay Barmase as
(DW-3). No documents have been adduced on behalf of appellant/defendant.
5. Appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court concluded that the
appellant is not entitled to receive the compensation and observed that the
incident caused due to negligence of plaintiff and principle of strict liability does
not apply.
6. In appeal reversing the finding of the trial Court, the compensation of
Rs. 11,01,250/- was awarded with 7% rate of interest from the date of order till
the date of payment in the following heads :-
(a) Permanent Functional disability Rs. 5,40,000/-
(b) Medical treatment, surgery and medicine Rs. 4,90,000/-
(c) Future treatment for bionic system Rs. 1,00,000/-
7. The trial Court has deducted an amount of compensation granted
under the amount of Rs. 28,750/-granted under the Public Liability Insurance
Act, 1991.
8. The First Appellate Court recorded the finding that the victim
sustained 50% of permanent functional disability and recorded the finding that
the respondent is liable to compensate the victim in light of judgment of M.C.
Mehta Vs. Union of India 1987 (1) SCC 395.
9. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 29-04-2017,
this Second Appeal has been preferred proposing following substantial
questions of law:-
"(i) Whether both the Courts below passed the judgements and decree are perverse
and illegal?
(ii) Whether the Court below have not considered this point that the claimant has
also granted the compensation under the provision of Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991?
(iii) Whether the learned Court below have not considered this point that the
claimant was negligent and rashly done the accident?
(iv) Whether the learned Appellate Court below have not considered finding of
learned Civil Court, who have passed the well reasoned and framed the correct issues?
(v) Whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the
judgment and finding of the learned trial Court when there was rightly passed the said
judgment by Civil Court.
(vi) Whether the Appellate Court had committed grave error of law in not
considering the evidence adduced and produced by the defendants/appellants, while
allowing the appeal of the respondent?
(vii) Whether the Appellate Court non-consideration of issues framing by the civil C
ourt is fatal to the plaintiff/respondent suit?
(viii) Any other substantial question of law, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper?"
10. Heard. .
11. Perused the record.
12. In M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and Others (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
p erso n 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."
13. In this case, it is not in dispute that the electric current which caused
the injury to victim, was passing through the electric line possessed and
maintained by the appellant/defendant.
14. The respondent/plaintiff was below the age of 18 years. Negligence
of victim cannot be taken as a defence.
15. Heads under which the compensation is awarded are admissible and
quantum of compensation is just. It does not call for interference.
16. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
PG
