Asst. Engg. Rural J.V.V.N. Ltd. ... vs Kiran And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8699 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 136/2017

1. Assistant Engineer Rural Jodhpur Vidut Vitran Nigem Ltd., Pali Dist Pali. Thro- Its Assistant Engineer Dhumbadia, Dist Jalore.

2. Superintending Engineer, Jodhpur Vidut Vitran Nigem Ltd., Pali Dist Pali.

3. Jodhpur Vidut Vitran Nigem Ltd., Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Kiran W/o Sh Late Kishan Lal

2. Anju D/o Sh Late Kishan Lal

3. Meera D/o Sh Late Kishan Lal

4. Kavita D/o Sh Late Kishan Lal

5. Budha Ram S/o Sh Panna Ram

6. Pakka Devi W/o Sh Buddha Ram, Respondents No. 2 To 4 Are Minor Natural Guarddian Mother Kiran W/o Sh Late Kishan Lal Aged About 33 Years, Are All R/o Mula Ba Ki Dhani, Roopwas, Tehsil Pali, Dist Pali.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. V.K. Bhadu
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Ravi Panwar



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                      Order

01/04/2021

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree

dated 18.10.2016 passed by District Judge, Pali, whereby, the suit

filed by the respondents for compensation under the Fatal

Accidents Act, 1855 ('the Act'), has been decreed and a

(2 of 4) [CFA-136/2017]

compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,59,000/- has been awarded

alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the suit.

The suit was filed with the averments that deceased - Kishan

Lal - son, father and husband of the plaintiffs, while working in his

field, came in contact with the stay wire of the electric pole and

suffered electrocution, which resulted in his death and for the said

fatal accident, compensation to the tune of Rs. 42,01,000/- was

claimed.

The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written

statement denying any kind of negligence on part of the

defendants.

The trial court framed four issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs

- two witnesses were examined and seven documents were

exhibited, on behalf of the respondents, one witness was

examined and two documents were exhibited.

After hearing the parties the trial court came to the

conclusion that from the FIR lodged and the post mortem report it

was apparent that Kishan Lal had died on account of electrocution

and that the accident occurred on account of negligence on part of

the respondents on account of which the current was flowing in

the stay wire of the electric pole, which resulted in the

electrocution and, therefore, held the respondents liable for

payment of compensation. After assessing the quantum of

compensation the trial court awarded a sum of Rs. 5,59,000/-

alongwith interest as indicated here-in-before.

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that

the trial court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that

the accident occurred on account of negligence on part of the

appellants.

(3 of 4) [CFA-136/2017]

Submissions were made that at the relevant time when the

accident is stated to have occurred, there was no electric current

flowing in the electric line and, therefore, there was no question of

the deceased suffering electrocution from the stay wire.

Further submissions were made that merely on account of

the deceased suffering electrocution, it cannot be concluded that

the accident occurred on account of negligence on part of the

appellants and, therefore, the decree impugned deserves to be set

aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents - caveator

made submissions that from the evidence, which has come on

record including the police report as well as the post mortem

report, it is apparent that the deceased suffered electrocution and

as the appellants have failed to prove that at the given time, the

electric supply was stopped, the submissions made cannot be

accepted.

Further submissions were made that the decree already

stands executed and, therefore, no case for interference is made

out.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the record.

The trial court, after analysing the evidence which was led by

the parties came to a positive conclusion that Kishan Lal suffered

electrocution from the stay wire in his field. The plea raised by the

appellant regarding the electric supply being not available during

the period when the accident is stated to have occurred was not

believed.

In view of the fact that the documents (Exs. A/1 and A/2)

produced were not proved by the persons who had prepared the

(4 of 4) [CFA-136/2017]

said documents / log sheet and as the police report as well as the

post mortem report had concluded that Kishan Lal had died on

account of the electrocution, the trial court came to the conclusion

that the accident occurred on account of negligence on part of the

appellants. The finding in the circumstances of the case cannot be

said to be perverse so as to require interference by this Court.

The quantum arrived at by the trial court also appears to be

justified in the circumstances of the case, which also does not call

for any interference.

In view of the above discussion, no case is made out for

entertaining the present appeal. The appeal has no substance and

the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 4-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)