Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs Priyanka on 19 March, 2021

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 472/2019

1. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Jodhpur.

2. Executive Engineer, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Churu

3. Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Sadulpur, District Churu.

----Appellants Versus

1. Priyanka W/o Late Shri Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ratanpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

2. Aditya S/o Late Shri Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 6 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian (Mother), Priyanka (Respondent No. 1) B/c Khati, R/o Ratanpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

3. Yogini D/o Late Shri Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 2 Years, Age 2 Years 7 Months. Minor Through Natural Guardian (Mother), Priyanka (Respondent No. 1) B/c Khati, R/o Ratanpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Rakesh Matoria.


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                                Judgment

19/03/2021

This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated

22/8/2019 passed by Addl. District Judge No.2, Rajgarh, District

Churu, whereby, the suit for compensation filed by the plaintiffs

under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 has been decreed and a sum of

Rs.10,26,000/- has been awarded as compensation along with

interest @ of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit.

(2 of 7) [CFA-472/2019]

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, wife & children of

deceased Rajesh Kumar, inter alia with the submissions that on

14/7/2016 at about 7 pm when deceased Rajesh Kumar, aged 32

years, was returning back to home from the workshop of his uncle

Mani Ram, he came in contact with stay wire of electricity pole on

the southern side of the workshop in which current was flowing, to

which he succumbed. It was indicated that around the stay wire,

rain water had accumulated and the land around it was wet and

electric current was flowing therein. As Rajesh Kumar was passing

nearby the stay wire, on account of electric current in the wet

land, he fell on the stay wire and died on the spot. He was taken

to the Government Hospital, where he was declared dead. FIR was

lodged and Postmortem was conducted. The doctor and police

investigation found the cause of death as electrocution. It was

alleged that it was the responsibility of the defendants to maintain

the electricity pole, electricity line and stay wire and repair the

same from time to time. It was indicated that on several occasions

certain persons made complaints, however, same was not repaired

and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to compensation of

Rs.1,01,50,000/-.

The defendants by filing written statement contested the

averments made in the plaint and submitted that no information

about death of Rajesh Kumar by electrocution was given. The

accident is suspicious and concocted. It was indicated that rains

had not started on 14/7/2016 and no water was collected around

the stay wire, land was not wet and no electric current was flowing

on to the stay wire and in the wet land. The basis for claiming

compensation was also denied. In additional pleas, it was

(3 of 7) [CFA-472/2019]

indicated that provisions of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003

('the Act') were not followed and, therefore, the suit was liable to

be dismissed.

Based on the submissions of the parties, the trial court

framed three issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, two witnesses

were examined and 17 documents were exhibited. On behalf of

the defendants, two witnesses were examined.

After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the

conclusion that in police report (Ex.1) there were specific

indications that Rajesh Kumar died on account of electrocution.

The postmortem report (Ex.10) indicated the cause of death as

electrocution and as the site map (Ex.8) indicated rain water

collected around the electricity pole, the evidence led by the

plaintiffs was substantiated and the defendants had failed to

produce any material evidence and consequently found that the

accident occurred at the alleged placed on account of negligence

on the part of defendants.

While assessing the quantum of compensation, the trial court

by taking the income of the deceased as that of unskilled

workman at minimum wages and applying the principles laid down

in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC

680 awarded compensation of Rs. 10,26,000/- along with interest,

as indicated hereinbefore.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the

trial court fell in error in awarding compensation and holding the

appellants negligent. Submissions were made that provisions of

Section 161 of the Act were not complied with, which deprived the

appellants from investigating as to whether the accident occurred

(4 of 7) [CFA-472/2019]

in terms of the allegations made and on that count the judgment

impugned cannot be sustained.

Further submissions were made that it was not proved by

any cogent evidence that current in fact was flowing in the stay

wire and that the deceased, on account of coming in contact with

the stay wire, suffered electrocution and consequential death.

The above aspect was sought to be emphasized with the

submission that in case electric current was flowing in the stay

wire on wet land around it, which was a public place, others would

have also suffered such current/electric shock, which aspect has

not come on record and on that count the entire story sought to

be projected cannot be believed and, therefore, the judgment

impugned deserves to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment

impugned. It was submitted that from the police report and

postmortem report, this aspect is not in dispute that Rajesh

Kumar died on account of suffering electrocution and from the

evidence which was led, it was more than apparent that the

accident occurred at the place indicated in the official documents

and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised in this regard has no

substance.

Submissions were made that provisions of Section 161 of the

Act are merely procedural and the submission made that for non-

compliance of the said provision, the plaintiffs are not entitled for

compensation, has no basis. It was prayed that the appeal be

dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

(5 of 7) [CFA-472/2019]

The provisions of Section 161 of the Act inter alia read as under:

"(1) If any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may by general or special order, direct.

(2) The Appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector, or any other person appointed by it in this behalf, to inquire and report--

(a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, or

(b) as to the manner in, and extent to, which the provisions of this Act or rules and regulations made thereunder or of any licence, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with. (3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub-section (2) shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and every person required by an Electrical Inspector be legally bound to do so within the meaning of section 176 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

A perusal of the above provisions would indicate that the

same deals with the inquiry to be conducted by the Electrical

Inspector or any person appointed by the appropriate Government

into the accident, which may occur in connection with generation,

transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity. The

provisions do not deal with award of compensation and nowhere

provides that in case notice of the occurrence of loss or injury

caused by the accident is not given to the Electrical Inspector or to

such authority as the appropriate Government may direct, the

claimant/injured would not be entitled to compensation and,

(6 of 7) [CFA-472/2019]

therefore, in those circumstances merely because the notice

allegedly was not given in terms of Section 161 of the Act, the

same by itself cannot have any implication on the maintainability

of the suit under the Fatal Accidents Act.

The submission made that the plaintiffs failed to prove the

accident having occurred on account of negligence of the

appellants also apparently has no substance. A bare look at the

police report (Ex.1) and the postmortem report (Ex.10), as

already noticed hereinbefore, clearly indicate the death of Rajesh

Kumar on account of suffering electrocution. The accident had

occurred at 7 pm on 14/7/2016 and the FIR was lodged on

15/7/2016 at 6.30 am giving out the specific details in this regard

and, therefore, also it cannot be said that the report was lodged

by way of an afterthought.

The plaintiffs on their part, had examined the claimants as

well as Mani Ram, who was the first informant and in whose

workshop the deceased was working. The site map (Ex.8) clearly

indicated collection of rain water around the electricity pole and

the stay wire and as such it cannot be said that the plaintiffs on

their part have not led evidence in support of the averments made

in the plaint.

So far as the submissions made on the basis of fact that as

alleged location was on the road, if the electric current was flowing

therein, others would have also suffered electrocution/shock is

concerned, appellants - defendants, despite having opportunity to

cross examine the plaintiffs' witnesses, have failed to even put the

said aspect by way of suggestion to the said witnesses. The total

cross examination, which is in few lines, reads as under:

                                                                                (7 of 7)                   [CFA-472/2019]


                                   P.W.1 - Smt. Priyanka

                                             "ftjg }kjk vf/koDrk izfroknhx.k %&

eSa d{kk 8oha rd i<+h gqbZ gqWa vkSj gLrk{kj djuk tkurh gqWA eSa esjs iÙkh ds fo|qr djaV yxk rc eSa lkFk ugha Fkh vkSj mudks djaV yxus ds ckn jktx< vLirky yk;s rc Hkh eSa lkFk ugha Fkh vkSj ifjokjokyksa gh mudks yk;s FksA vkSj mldk iksLVekVZe gqvk rc eSa ?kj ij gh Fkh eSaus Lo;a us bl ?kVuk ckcr dksbZ lwpuk fuxe dks ugha nh] pkpk llqj euhjke us mDr ?kVuk dh fyf[kr fjiksVZ iqfyl esa nh FkhA"

P.W.2 - Mani Ram

"mDr ?kVuk dh lwpuk fuxe dks nh Fkh iksLVekVZe ds le; fuxe dk deZpkjh dksbZ ekSdk ij vk;k eq>s irk ughaA "

In view of the above state of cross examination, the

submissions sought to be made in the present appeal cannot be

countenanced.

In view thereof, the findings recorded by the trial court on

issue no. 1 regarding the accident and the negligence on the part

of appellants cannot be faulted.

The quantum of compensation, as the same is in consonance

with the principles laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),

has rightly not been questioned by the appellants.

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the