Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut ... vs Chandani Bano
2025 Latest Caselaw 548 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut ... vs Chandani Bano on 8 May, 2025

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia

                          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11065


                                                                1                  SA. No. 476 of 2025

                           IN THE         HIGH COURT                OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT G WA L I O R
                                                           BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

                                                  ON THE 8th OF MAY, 2025

                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 476 of 2025
                               MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
                                     COMPANY LTD. MORENA AND OTHERS
                                                  Versus
                                        CHANDANI BANO AND OTHERS


                          Appearance:
                          Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for appellant.



                                                       JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 passed by VIII District Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No.52 of 2023 as well as judgment and decree dated 20.10.2023 passed by Fifth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Morena (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.15-B/2019.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short are that respondents No.1 to 3 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- pleading inter alia that plaintiff No. 1 is widow and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are parents of deceased Jakir alias Jahangir. Deceased Jakir alias Jahangir was operating a workshop in partnership with Parvej alias Sonu Khan. The repair work of vehicles was being done in the workshop, which was in operation for the last

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11065

4 years. It was pleaded that adjacent to the workshop, the shop of defendant No.1 is situated, in which electricity meter had been installed by defendants No. 2 to 4. Service line has been taken from the electric pole. It was the duty of defendants No. 2 to 4 to maintain the service line, but they did not maintain it properly. The service line had cuts at various places, and taking advantage of the same, defendant No. 1 was committing theft of electricity. On 24.07.2019 at 6 p.m., Jakir alias Jahangir was repairing a Bolero Jeep. At that time, Hasan and Punnu as well as his partner Sonu Khan heard the screams of Jakir alias Jahangir. When they rushed to the spot, they found that deceased was trying to come out of the Bolero Jeep. At that time, the damaged service line touched the iron rod, and Jakir alias Jahangir got electrocuted. Partner Sonu Khan gave a kick blow to separate Jakir alias Jahangir's hand from the iron pipe. He remained unconscious and was not in a position to speak. Sonu Khan took him to District Hospital, Morena, where he was declared dead. Thereafter, he was taken to Birla Hospital where also he was declared dead. The dead body was kept in the mortuary at District Hospital, Morena and postmortem was conducted. Thus, it was the case of plaintiffs that due to negligence and unauthorized work of defendants No.1 to 4, Jakir alias Jahangir died on account of electrocution and accordingly compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs was sought from the defendants.

3. Defendants No. 2 and 3 denied plaint averments. It was denied that service line had cuts. It was pleaded that defendants were maintaining the service line periodically. It was also pleaded that plaintiffs did not inform the electricity department immediately, whereas timely information was necessary for inspection/inquiry.

4. Defendant No. 1 also filed written statement claiming that there was no workshop by the side of Rajput Hotel and no such workshop was being

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11065

operated by the deceased in partnership with Parvej alias Sonu. It was denied that defendant No.1 was involved in theft of electricity. It was also denied that service line had any cut.

5. The trial court, after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit. It was held that although plaintiffs were entitled to loss of income to the tune of Rs.15,91,200/-, but since they themselves had valued the suit at Rs. 4 lacs, therefore, defendants No. 2 to 4 were directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 4 lacs to the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till actual payment.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendants preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 passed by VIII District Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2023.

7. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that the service line was being maintained regularly and the plaintiffs failed to prove their case and in support of his contention, counsel for appellants relied upon spot map Ex.D/1, Mouka panchnama Ex.D/2 and statement of Kalyan Rathore Ex.D/3. The appellant proposed the following substantial questions of law:

"a) Whether the judgments and decree passed by both the learned courts below are not sustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case?

(b) Whether the learned courts below have erred the aforesaid FIR lodged against the respondent No. 4 which is not considered?

(c) Whether the learned courts below have not consider the evidence of appellants which is involved the matter?"

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11065

9. Vikas Verma (DW-1), who was working as Junior Engineer in Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Ganeshpura Zone, stated that on 23.04.2019 a complaint was received from lineman Pradeep Tomar that a person near Rajput Hotel, situated on AB Road, has suffered electrocution. Consequently, electricity supply was disconnected. On the next day, local lineman informed that the person had died. On 25.04.2019, he visited the spot, prepared the spot map, recorded statements, and prepared spot panchnama. Upon inspection, he found that the insulation of service line was cut at 3 to 4 places and fresh insulation tape was applied. One white coloured wire was going to the shop of Kalyan Rathore. The cut portion of service line was touching the tin-shed of the shop where Jakir alias Jahangir was working, as a result he suffered electrocution. The electric meter as well as service line were seized by him and were handed over to police. In cross-examination, he admitted that the duty to maintain service line from pole to meter is of electricity department. He also admitted that complaints regarding theft of electricity are dealt with by his department. He also admitted specifically that duty to maintain service line is of the department. He also admitted that it was the duty of his department to find out as to whether service line is damaged or not. He further admitted that the damaged service line can be noticed at any point of time and in case if some damages are found then they issue notice to the consumer to get the service line replaced. He also admitted that Kalyan Rathore had taken the service line from above the roof of shop where Jakir alias Jahangir was working and service line was cut with an intention to commit theft. However, he admitted that no notice was given to defendant No.1. He further admitted that prior to incident he never went to the spot to check the service line. He admitted that in his enquiry, he had found that service line which had gone to the meter of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11065

Kalyan Rathore was having cuts and only on account of that Jakir alias Jahangir had died. It was also found in the enquiry that Kalyan Rathore was committing theft of electricity through the damaged portion of service line. However, he denied that Jakir alias Jahangir suffered electrocution on account of negligence on the part of electricity department. He further stated that in case if service line suffers damages on account of act of God then responsibility to maintain the same will be of the electricity department. In case if the service line is deliberately damaged, then responsibility will be of the consumer. Although this witness had prepared documents Ex. D/1 to D/3 but they were not exhibited by this witness.

10. Appellants also examined Raghuvir Singh (DW-2), who proved spot map, panchnama, and statement of Kalyan Rathore as Ex. D/1 to D/3. He stated that these documents bear signature of Vikas Verma (DW-1). In cross- examination, he admitted that the place of incident falls within his zone area. He claimed that he carries out periodical check up in his zone area and in case if it is found that somebody is committing theft, then legal action is taken against him. However, he claimed that prior to the date of accident he never received any information about theft which was being committed by Kalyan Singh, therefore, they never went to the shop of Kalyan Singh prior to the date of incident. Documents Ex.D/1 to D/3 were prepared by Vikas Verma.

11. Thus, even if the evidence led by appellants is considered, Vikas Verma (DW-1) has clearly stated that insulation of service line was damaged at various places and Kalyan Rathore was committing theft of electricity from the cut/exposed part of service line. It was also admitted by him that it is the duty of electricity department to maintain the service line. It has also been admitted by Vikas Verma (DW-1) that the accident took place on

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11065

account of electrocution. He also admitted that because of cut in the service line electricity had run through the tin-shed where Jakir alias Jahangir was working and consequently, Jakir alias Jahangir suffered electrocution.

12. Both courts below have held that appellants were negligent in maintaining service line. Counsel for appellants could not point out any perversity in concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. In view of evidence of Vikas Verma (DW-1) and Raghuvir Singh (DW-2) which corroborates and supports the claim of plaintiffs, this Court is of considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises.

13. Consequently, judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 passed by VIII District Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No.52 of 2023 as well as judgment and decree dated 20.10.2023 passed by Fifth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Morena (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.15-B/2019 are affirmed.

14. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (and)