Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut ... vs Dilip on 3 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
FIRST APPEAL No. 892 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITRAN COMPANY LTD THR EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NORTH BETUL TIKARI PURANA BACHCHA JAIL BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR WITH SHRI UJJWAL VAIDYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DILIP S/O JAIRAM PAWAR, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, R/O. SIRKUND KHAPA TAH AAMLA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. IMLABAI W/O IMRAT PAWAR, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, R/O. RIDHORA, TEH. MULTAI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GAURAV SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent, heard the parties at the motion stage.
This appeal has been preferred by appellant being aggrieved with the
judgment and decree passed by Ist Upper District Judge, Multai, District Betul
(M.P.) passed in Civil Suit No.1B-A/2021 dated 05.08.2017 by which the
plaintiff's suit for damage was allowed and appellant-company was ordered to
pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to mother of the deceased-Manish with the
interest @6% in default @9%.
2. The facts before the Trial Court were that plaintiff-respondent no.2's
Manish aged about 5 years on 17.09.2008 at about 4:00 pm came into contact
with electric line and died due to electrocution. The FIR was lodged and Police
registered criminal case against respondent no.1. Postmortem was conducted
over the dead body of the deceased. Chargesheet was filed against respondent
no.1. On the above facts, respondent no.2 filed a civil suit before the Trial
Court for damages that was allowed as stated above.
3. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that Trial Court has
wrongly appreciated the evidence as it was clear that Manish died due to rash
and negligent act of respondent no.1 as he committed theft of electricity.
Manish came into contact of that line. In that situation, respondent no.1 was
liable to compensate the plaintiff. There was no evidence to show the negligence
of the electric supply appellant-company but Trial Court has awarded the
compensation. Trial Court applied the principles of res ipsa loquitor that was
not applicable in the facts of the case. He further argued that the compensation
amount was wrongly assessed and has further argued that the suit was filed on
17.06.2015 and the incident has happened on 13.09.2008. Delay has not been
properly explained as the suit was time barred.
4 . Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that Trial Court
has properly appreciated the evidence and properly applied the principles of
strict liability and of res ipsa loquitor. There is no substance in the appeal.
Hence, the appeal be dismissed and order of the Trial Court be maintained.
5. I have gone through the record of the Trial Court.
6. From the statement of Imlabai (PW-1), Babulal (PW-2), it is clear that
Imlabai is the mother of the deceased-Manish. Manish died on 13.09.2008.
From the judgment Ex.D-1, it is further clear that the deceased-Manish died in
electrocution.
7. Plaintiff has also filed the documents Chargesheet (Ex.P-1), FIR
(Ex.P-2), spot map (Ex.P-3) and postmortem report (Ex.P-4). From the FIR
and postmortem report and findings recorded in Ex.D-1 that is judgment of
Criminal Court in Special Case No.400/2008 passed by Special Judge,
Electricity Act, Multai in para 9 to 11 of judgment has held as under:-
Þ9- mijksä fopkj.kh; ç'u ds lac/k esa fot; lksuh v-lk- 6 us dFku
fd;k gS fd 18-9-08 dks Fkkuk eqyrkbZ esa ç/kku vkj{kd inLFk FkkA exZ
dz--- 0@08 /kkjk 174 n-ç-l dh Mk;jh tkap gsrw Hksth xbZ FkhA ekSds ij
tkdj lQhuk QkeZ tkjh fd;k Fkk tks ç-ih- 3] uD'kk iapk;rukek ç-ih-- 4
gSA bejr v-lk 3 bZeykckbZ v-lk 4- ckcwyky v-lk 5 ds }kjk lQhuk
QkeZ ç-ih- 3 tkjh djuk ,ao uD'kk iapk;rukek ç-ih- 4 cuk;s tkus dk
leFkZu fd;k gSA lkf{k;ksa ds çfrijh{k.k ds nkSjku dksbZ egRoiw.kZ
fojks/kkHkk"k ugh gS ftlls ç-ih- 3 dk lQhuk QkeZ rFkk ç-ih- 4 dk uD'kk
iapk;rukek çekf.kr gS tks fd vkSipkfjd dk;Zokgh gSA
10- eUuwyky v-lk 2 us DFku fd;k gS fd 17-9-08 dks lkeq-Lok- dsUæ
eqykrkbZ es okMZ C;k; ds in ij Fkk mä fnukad dks 6-30 cts euh"k firk
bZejr iaokj dks e`r voLFkk esa yk;k x;k FkkA fot; lksuh v-lk 6 us
dFku fd;k gS fd exZ d- 0@08 /kkjk 174 nçl dh tkap gsrw lh-,l-lh
eqyrkbZ tkdj e`rd euh"k firk bZejr mez 5 lky fuoklh fj/kksjk dk ih-
,e djk;k FkkA Mk- mTtsfu;k v-lk 12 us dFku fd;k gS fd og fnukad
18-9-08 dks lkeq- Lok] dsUæ eqyrkbZ es esfMdy inLFk FkkA eqyrkbZ ds
vkj{kd lq[kyky dz- 46 }kjk e`rdeuh"k firk bZejr mez 5 lky fuoklh
fj/kksjk dk 'ko ijh{k.k ds fy;s yk;k x;k Fkk ftldh igpku lwjryky
firk lkgscyky us dh FkhA
11- Mk- Mh- ds mTtSfu;k v-lk 12 us dFku fd;k gS fd e`rd euh"k dk
'ko Vscy ij fpÙk voLFkk esa FkkA e`R;q iwoZ dh vdMu tk jgh FkhA eqg
vkSj ukd can FksA psgjk ihyk ,ao lwtk gqvk FkkA isV Qwyk gqvk] lw[kh
ykj fn[kkbZ ns jgh FkhA eqag vkSj ukd ls lQsn >kx fudy jgk Fkk
uk[kwu uhys FkhA e`rd ds 'kjhj esa fuEu pksVs ikbZ xbZ Fkh&
1- xgjk tyk gqvk ?kko ck;s gkFk dh xnsyh ij 2 xq.kk 2 lseh vkdkj
dk Fkk tks fd fctyh ds vanj ços'k djrs gq, djaV ls tyk tSlk yx
jgk FkkA
2- ,d QQksyk 3 xq.kk 2 lseh vkdkj dk bjsX;wyj vkdkj F{kk ftles
rjy inkFkZ mifdLFkr FkkA ckbZ dykbZ ds TokbZaV ij chp es Fkk tyk
gqvk fpUg 4 xq.kk 3 lseh cka;s iSj ij vanj dh rjQ Fkk tks fd fctyh
ds ckgj fudyrs gq;s djaV ls tyk tSlk yx jgk FkkA
3- lHkh tys gq, djaV ds ?kko ds vklikl dh Ropk fcuk yky jax fy;s
gq, tyh FkhA djaV ds dkj.k iwjh Ropk tydj dkyh iM xbZ FkhA bu
pksVks ds vykok e`rd ds 'kjhj ij vkSj dksbZ pksV ds fu'kku ugh FksA
e`rd dk 'kjhj lkekU; dn dkBh dk FkkA ?kko ,o ,ao pksV dk vkdkj
mij n'kkZ;k x;k gGSA [kksiMh ukeZy FkhA efLr"d dh flYyh ukeZy
datsL VsM inkZ ilyh dkseyL; o{k Hkkx lkekU; FkkA daB 'okl uyh es
>kx FkkA QzkFk Fkha E;wdkstk datsLVsM Fkk nksuks QsQMs datsLVSM FksA
isfjdkfM;y æO; mifLFkr Fkk ân; es ck;a lkbZM [kkkyh ,ao nkfguk
lkbZM [kwu ls Hkjk FkkA o`gn okfg;dk;s datsLVsM Fkh inkZ vkarks dh
f>Yyh lkekU; Fkh eqag rFkk xzkl uyh esa lQsn >kx FkkA isV vkSj mlds
vanj dh oLrq, v/kiph Fkh ,ao NksVh vkar esa Hkkstu ekStwn FkkA cMh vkar
esa ey inkFkZ FkkA ;--r ihfygk xqnkZ tks fd datsLVsM dkVus ij mlds
vanj ls CyM fudy jgk FkkA eq=k'k; [kkyh Fkk ckgjh ,ao Hkhrjh
tusfUæ;k lkekU; FkhA
4- pksV ;k chekjh dk C;kSjk& pkV cuZ ekdZ tks fd ist u- 3 es n'kkZbZ
xbZ mPpå fctyh ds djaV dks idMus ds dkj.k tks fd 18 ls 20 ?kaVs
e`R;q iwoZ dh pksVs gSA
5- vfHker& e`rd ds 'kjhj dk ih ,e djus ds ckn esjk vfHker gS fd&
e`rd dh e`R;q& vLokHkkfod ,DlhMaVy fctyh ds djaV lsA
e`R;q dk dkj.k& ^efLr"d^ jsLikfjVh 'kkd gksus ds dkj.k
vR;kf/kd mPpnkc ds djaV yxus ls gksuk
çrhr gksrk gSA
e`R;q dk le;& ih-,e- ds 18 ls 20 ?kaVs ds vanjA
esjh fjiksVZ ç-ih- 14 gS ftlds v l v Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA bl rjg
Mk- mTtsfu;k v-lk 12 ds dFku ,ao ç-ih- 14 ds fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj e`rd
euh"k dh e`R;q vR;kf/kd mPp nkc ds fctyh ds djsaV yxus ls gqbZ gS
tks fd vLHkkfod ,ao ,sDlhMsaVy gSA blh vk'k; dk fu"d"kZ fopkj.kh;
fcUnw dz- 1 dk fn;k tkrk gSAß
8. It is clear that the deceased-Manish aged 5 years died on 17.09.2008 at
village Khapa.
9. Thus, there is no doubt regarding the death of deceased-Manish due to
electrocution.
10. This has been agitated that respondent no.1 was using the electricity
by unauthorised way and he has illegally connected LT Line of appellant-
company and illegally settled earthing wire and deceased came into contact of
that wire but defendant-witness Suresh Pamar (DW-2) Assistant Engineer of the
Company has admitted in the cross-examination that no complaint was made
against respondent Dilip for electricity theft. Neither the consumers nor the
lineman has reported that he is illegally using the electricity. He has also
admitted that in inquiry, no evidence was found against Dilip and he has not
lodged any report against Dilip and has further stated that he is not in position
to explain, who is liable for the death of Manish.
11. In para 9 of his statement, he has admitted that on 17.09.2008 in
Khapa circle, the electricity was being supplied by the defendant-company and
the electricity was flowing on the line in which contact Manish died.
12. From the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that deceased
died to electrocution shock and the appellant (defendant no.2) was supplying
the electricity on that line coming on the contact the decased died. The
respondent no.1 was acquitted by Trial Court for the offence punishable under
Section 304-A of IPC and Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003.
1 3 . The Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail
Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162 has held that in the cases of electricity supply, the
liability of the electricity company is of nature as a principle enumerated in
Rylands v. Fletcher case i.e. the principle of the strict liability and further held
that the electricity company cannot take the defence of "an act of stranger".
14. Trial Court has also considered the liability on the basis of precedent
law as stated in the judgment of Trial Court.
15. Thus, the appellant-company is liable to compensate the victim-
mother of the deceased.
16. On the quantum of the compensation, the deceased was of 5 years
old and Trial Court has considered the principles laid down in the case of State
of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, (2003) 7 SCC 484 . In the judgments of Lata
Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 and Delhi Municipal
Corporation vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC
4 8 1 and awarded Rs.5,00,000/- compensation amount that cannot be said to
be higher on any basis.
17. On the point of limitation, I have gone through the record of Trial
Court. Before Trial Court, plaintiff-respondent no.2 has filed the suit on
08.07.2009 within a year from the date of incident (17.09.2008) and the suit was
filed as a pauper under Order 33 of CPC but the permission was not granted on
17.06.2015. After payment of Court fees, the case was registered on
17.06.2015. In this respect, as per provisions of Order 33 Rule 15-A, the suit
shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the application for
permission to sue as an indigent person was presented. Thus, on the above
principle, the suit will be deemed to be presented on 08.07.2009. The suit is
within limitation.
18. Hence, the judgment and decree of Trial Court is affirmed.The
appellant's appeal sans merit and is dismissed.
19. The appellant shall bear the cost to the respondent also. Decree be
drawn accordingly.
20. With the copy of the judgment and decree, the record of Trial Court
be returned back.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
HK
