A.V.V.N.L And Anr vs Shaitan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7908 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 271/2015

1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited through Chairman, Ajmer.

2. Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan, through the Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Shahpura, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus Shaitan S/o Sh. Balu Rewari, aged about 53 years, Resident of Devapura, Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh.

For Respondent(s)         :


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                     Judgment
22/03/2021

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree

dated 25.3.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Shahpura,

District Bhilwara, whereby, the suit for compensation filed by the

plaintiff for death of a camel and injury to another has been

decreed and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been ordered to be paid

alongwith interest @ 4% per annum from the date of filing the suit

i.e. 4.9.2012.

The suit for compensation was filed with the averments that

two female camels of the plaintiff were grazing at around 6.30 pm

on 9.5.2012, when the electricity line of the defendants, which

were hanging very low, came in contact with the camels, which

resulted in, one of them dying on the spot and other suffering

(2 of 3) [CFA-271/2015]

injuries. It was claimed that the said camels were the source of

income for the plaintiff and as such compensation was claimed.

Written statement was filed disputing the averments made in

the plaint. It was denied that the female camels were owned by

the plaintiff and that the accident occurred from the electricity

line.

The trial court framed four issues. On behalf of the plaintiff,

he himself was examined alongwith one more witness. On behalf

of the defendants, one witness was examined. The plaintiff

exhibited seven documents.

After hearing the parties, the trial court based on the

postmortem report (Ex.3) came to the conclusion that the camel

had died due to electricity shock and it was apparent that the

electricity line was not at the prescribed height and as such, the

accident occurred on account of the negligence on part of the

respondents. The court also came to the conclusion that the

plaintiff was entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-,

cause of action was in favour of the plaintiff and ultimately passed

the decree as noticed hereinbefore.

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that

the trial court committed error in decreeing the suit, inasmuch as,

no information was given to the appellants in relation to the

accident, a postmortem was conducted in absence of the officers

and that from the evidence produced by the appellants, it was

apparent that the wires were not hanging low and, therefore, the

trial court committed error in awarding the compensation.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellants and have perused the material available on

record.

(3 of 3) [CFA-271/2015]

Merely because information was not given to the appellants

regarding the camels suffering electrocution, cannot be a reason

to come to the conclusion that the accident did not occur. The

postmortem report clearly indicated that the camel died from

electrocution and applying the principles of res ipsa loquitur, it is

apparent that if the camel came in contact with the electricity line,

the same was indeed hanging low from the prescribed height and

as such, it cannot be said that the appellants were not negligent in

up-keep of the electricity line, which resulted in the accident and

the trial court did not commit any error in deciding the issue

against the appellants.

The compensation awarded by the trial court of Rs. 40,000/-

for death of one camel and injuries suffered by another, cannot be

said to be excessive so as to warrant interference in the present

appeal.

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in

the judgment impugned is made out. There is no substance in the

appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 24-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)