Rajasthan High Court

Chairman A V V N L And Ors vs Gulabi Devi on 18 April, 2022

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 157/2009

 1.     Chairman, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer

 2.     Supdt. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
        Sikar
 3.     Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
        Ringus
 4.     Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
        Palsana
 5.     Junior Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
        Palsana
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
 1.     Gulabi Devi W/o Ramesh Kumar Arya, R/o Dhani Koria Ki
        Tan, Juratadha Tehsil And Distt. Sikar Rajasthan
 2.     Suresh Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar Arya, R/o Dhani Koria
        Ki Tan, Juratadha Tehsil And Distt. Sikar Rajasthan
 3.     Ku. Anita, Minor D/o Ramesh Kumar Through Their
        Mother Smt. Gulabi Devi, R/o Dhani Koria Ki Tan,
        Juratadha Tehsil And Distt. Sikar Rajasthan
 4.     Ku. Sangita, Minor D/o Ramesh Kumar Through Their
        Mother Smt. Gulabi Devi, R/o Dhani Koria Ki Tan,
        Juratadha Tehsil And Distt. Sikar Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. B.N. Sandu
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Takhat Singh



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                 Judgment

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                                      : 11/04/2022

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                                    : April _18th_, 2022
BY THE COURT:

1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the

judgment and decree dated 20-2-2008 passed by the Additional District

Judge No.1, Sikar, in Suit No.156/2005 (Fatal Accident Case), whereby and

(2 of 11) [CFA-157/2009]

whereunder the suit claiming compensation has been decreed and allowed

compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- to plaintiffs against the defendant AVVNL on

account of death of Ramesh Kumar Arya, plaintiffs's husband and father due

to electrocution.

2. Respondents have filed an application for disbursement of

compensation amount, however, the impugned award was passed on 20-2-

2008 and this first appeal is pending since 2009, with the consent of

counsel for both parties, appeal itself has been heard finally on merits.

3. The facts of the case are that respondents plaintiffs (hereafter `the

plaintiffs') filed a civil suit under Section 1(a) of the Fatal Accident Act,

claiming compensation on account of accidental death of Ramesh Kumar

Arya, who died on 7-7-2004 because of electrocution, at 7.30 AM while he

went to start boring machine installed at the well in his field he was touched

with the wire used for electric pole, in which electric current was passing.

Sustaining current Ramesh Kumar became unconscious and was thereafter

taken to Government Hospital Palsana, but was declared dead. Since the

plaintiff No.1 is a lady, plaintiff No.2 only major son and plaintiffs No.3&4

were minor daughters, they were shocked therefore FIR in this regard could

not be lodged immediately, and when they tried to register the report

regarding death of Ramesh Kumar, the Police Station Ranoli did not lodge

(3 of 11) [CFA-157/2009]

the report. Therefore, complaint was filed before the court, which under

Section 156(3) CrPC forwarded the same to Police Station. It was alleged that

out of white insulators fixed on wires one insulator was broken due to

which current was passing and many times it passed through wire used for

the pole. It was stated that written complaints were made to the electricity

department, but the same was not repaired. The deceased was 44 years at

the time of incident and was well healthy person. It was claimed that the

deceased was a well versed farmer, engaged in milk trade having ten

buffaloes and owning Indica car, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. As

such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming

compensation to the tune of Rs.40,21,000/-.

4. On issuing notices appellants-defendants (hereafter `the

defendants') filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence

and stated that there was no electric connection in the name of deceased

Ramesh Kumar, but electric connection was in the name of Hanmana Ram

as account No.2304/63. The wire used for the pole was at a safe distance

from L-Bracket, as such there was no possibility of current. There was no

complaint by deceased regarding electric current in the pole or its connected

wire. It was stated that if somebody try to commit theft of electricity there

was possibility of electric current. It was further stated that the deceased was

(4 of 11) [CFA-157/2009]

residing in field itself having construed house and was using telephone, TV,

Cooler, flour mill machine and other machines, but there was no electric

connection in the name of deceased, as such there is possibility of electric

current while he was trying to commit theft of electricity. The FIR was also

lodged with great delay just to hide true facts and false allegations have been

levelled against the department. As such no liability could be shifted upon

defendants. It was prayed to dismiss the case of plaintiffs.

5. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed five issues.

Plaintiffs examined four witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. Defendants

examined two witnesses. The trial court considered oral and documentary

evidence led by both parties and decided issues No.1&4 conjointly holding

that defendants failed to prove that deceased was using electricity

unauthorisedly and that deceased died because of electrocution from the

current in the wire used for the pole as there was no insulator fixed and the

insulator used for LT line was broken. It was further held that defendants

did not properly maintained the supply of electricity due to which fatal

accident occurred, as such issue No.1 and 4 were decided in favour of

plaintiffs and against defendants. Regarding issue No.3 the trial court held

that information (Ex.19) was duly submitted in department on 9-9-2005,

thus proper notice was given to defendants and that since defendants have

(5 of 11) [CFA-157/2009]

not taken any plea that since information was given late therefore plaintiffs

are not entitled for compensation. Thus, the issue was decided in favour of

plaintiffs. Issue No.2, regarding amount of compensation, the trial court

considering oral and documentary evidence concluded that in absence of

any proof of income Rs.2000/- per month would have spent on his family

and applying multiplier of 15 assessed the compensation Rs.3,60,000/- and

for pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- provided, thus, assessed the total

compensation Rs.3,70,000/-.

Accordingly, vide judgment dated 20-2-2008 the suit was decreed for

payment of compensation Rs.3,70,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @

9% p.a.

6. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree present first appeal has

been filed. Vide order dated 4-3-2009, this court directed that entire

compensation amount be deposited and kept in FDR, but claimants were

allowed to withdraw the interest accrued thereon on monthly or quarterly

basis.

7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned

judgment and decree as also other material available on record.

8. Learned counsel for defendants has submitted that the impugned

judgment and decree is liable to be set aside as the trial court has not

(6 of 11) [CFA-157/2009]

considered the fact that the deceased sustained electrocution while he was

committing theft of electricity. There was no fault in the electric line but the

current passed in the wire used for pole while deceased tried to commit theft

and that plaintiffs did not inform the incident immediately just to hide the

truth. It has been further submitted that trial court has not considered the

fact that there was no complaint regarding fault. Therefore findings of the

trial court are perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to

be quashed and set aside.

9. Per contra, counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that the trial court has

considered evidence of both parties and has rightly decided issues according

to evidence of parties and has rightly awarded compensation to plaintiffs.

10. Heard. Considered.

11. Having heard learned counsel for parties and considered evidence of

both parties it is proved on record that the deceased died due to current

passed in the wire used for holding the pole with which the deceased stuck

and electrocuted, which fact is proved by evidence of Aw.1 Gulabi Devi,

Aw.2 Suresh Kumar, Aw.3 Jagdish Prasad and Aw.4 Banshi Lal and Report

Ex.2 prepared by Dr. Laxman Singh Ola, Primary Health Center Palsana. The

deceased sustained electrocution from the wire used for the pole as there

was no insulator fixed, and the insulator used for LT line was broken since

(7 of 11) [CFA-157/2009]

defendants did not properly maintained the supply of electricity due to

which fatal accident occurred. Defendants failed to prove that deceased was

using electricity unauthorisedly. Thus issues No.1 and 4 were decided in

favour of plaintiffs and against defendants. Issue No.3, regarding

information to AVVNL, the trial court held that proper notice information

(Ex.19) was duly submitted in department on 9-9-2005, and the issue was

decided in favour of plaintiffs. Issue No.2, regarding compensation, the trial

court considering oral and documentary evidence awarded compensation of

Rs.3,70,000/-.

12. A perusal of impugned judgment indicates that negligence on the

part of defendants was proved and therefore compensation has been

awarded to plaintiffs. At the site insulators were not properly fixed

defendants and they failed to maintain electric supply properly. Once it is

established that poles were not proper due to which deceased got

electrocuted, the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability comes in

play. The defendant AVVNL would be strictly and vicariously liable to

compensate persons affected by accidents without being any fault of their

and due to negligence on the part of defendants. The issue of negligence on

the part of electricity department entitlement compensation to sufferer has

been considered by this court in case of Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs.

(8 of 11) [CFA-157/2009]

Smt. Sumitra Devi, SB Civil First Appeal No.158/2011, decided on 12-4-

2022, and considering Rules 29 and 77(3) of the Indian Electricity Rules,

1956 relying on judgments in case of Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of

Police Delhi [(2000)3 SCC 754] and MP Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar

[AIR 2000 SC 551] held that it is the responsibility of Electricity Board to

supply electric energy, but if the energy so transmitted causes injury or

death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it, the primary

liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier.

13. In case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar (supra) the Apex

Court held that "it is the responsibility of the Electricity Board to supply

electric energy, but if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a

human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to

compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. It is no

defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody

committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and

that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out the

managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing

necessary devices. The liability cast on such person is known as "strict

liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of negligence

or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the

(9 of 11) [CFA-157/2009]

foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the

defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot

be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. The

principle of strict liability was considered in paras 8 and 9, which reads

thus:-

"8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known in law as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.

9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English Common Law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher [1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330], Blackburn J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision:

"The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."

14. On appreciation of factual and legal position aforesaid, findings of

trial court on issues No.1 and 4 are found well within jurisdiction and

parameters of law, which do not suffer from any perversity. This is a proved

case of plaintiffs where the deceased died due to electrocution because of

(10 of 11) [CFA-157/2009]

negligence on the part of defendant AVVNL in not maintaining the wire of

pole in which current was passing due to not fixing insulators. Further

according to the principle of strict liability the electricity department is

absolutely liable to compensate sufferers. Thus, with regard to findings of

issues No.1 and 4, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the

trial court.

15. Similarly, defendant AVVNL failed to prove the theft of electricity by

deceased and that deceased died because of negligence on the part of

defendants. Therefore, the issue No.2 has rightly been decided against

defendants.

16. Issue No.4 pertaining to assessment of quantum of compensation has

been decided taking into account the income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per

month and after deduction of 1/3 amount for deceased himself, assessed the

amount to be spent by deceased for his family Rs.2000/- and applying

multiplier of 15 assessed the compensation including Rs.10,000/- for pain

and suffering. Since there is no counter appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation, therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the

quantum of compensation so awarded by the trial court.