Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs Sita Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 5563 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Civil First Appeal No. 231/2021

1. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director/Chairman, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., New Power House, Jodhpur (Raj.)

2. Assistant Engineer, City Sub Division B-3, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Medical College Office, Jodhpur

----Appellants Versus

1. Smt. Sita Devi W/o Late Bhagwandas Valmiki,

2. Ms. Momal D/o Late Bhagwandas Valmiki,

3. Ms. Anjali D/o Late Bhagwandas Valmiki,

4. Vishal S/o Late Bhagwandas Valmiki,

5. Mahendra S/o Late Bhagwandas Valmiki, Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are residents of Sanjay Colony, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are minors represented through their natural guardian mother respondent No. 1 - Smt. Sita Devi

6. Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur through its Commissioner

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Mr. Praveen Mohan Vyas & Mr. Sunil Purohit

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Judgment

18/04/2022

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

present first appeal is being finally decided at admission stage.

The instant first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the defendants-appellants -

Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited against the Judgment &

Decree dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge

No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No. 68/2019

(2 of 7) [CFA-231/2021]

titled as "Smt. Sita Devi & ors. Vs. Jd.V.V.N.L. & ors", whereby the

civil suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents under the provisions of

Fatal Accidents Act, 1885 for grant of compensation, was decreed.

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs (respondents

herein) filed a civil suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885

(afterwards referred to as "the Act of 1885") seeking

compensation against the defendants (appellants herein) as well

as Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur (respondent No. 6 herein)

alleging inter alia that on account of gross negligence in

maintaining the electricity lines by the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran

Nigam Limited and the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur,

Bhagwandas Valmiki got electrocuted. The plaintiffs in their plaint

alleged that on 07.06.2002, Bhagwandas Valmiki (since deceased)

was passing through main road near Chili & Garlic Restaurant,

Jaljog Choraha, Jodhpur. At around 9.30 P.M., he got electrocuted

by an electricity pole on account of negligence of the Jd.V.V.N.L.

and the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur in maintaining their

electricity lines. The defendants did not maintain the poles and

electricity lines properly. The plaintiffs sought compensation of

Rs. 35,07,000/- from the defendants under the provisions of the

Act of 1885. The defendants filed their written statements and

denied that there was any negligency whatsoever, in maintaining

the electricity lines. It was pleaded that tubular pole where

incident was alleged to have happened was situated on a road

divider and there was no passing way near tubular pole. Not only

this, the pole was guarded by fencing and therefore, no fault could

be assigned so far as maintenance of electricity lines by the

defendants was concerned. The trial court, after trial and hearing

the arguments of both the parties, passed Judgment & Decree

(3 of 7) [CFA-231/2021]

dated 18.03.2021 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs-

respondents and directed the defendants - Jd.V.V.N.L. and

Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur to pay compensation of

Rs. 8,88,652/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the

plaintiffs from the date of filing of the suit till realization of money.

Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 18.03.2021, this

first appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants -

Jd.V.V.N.L. arraying plaintiffs and Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur

as party respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

of the trial court.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

incident was suspicious. After the incident, claim was settled by

the owner of Chili and Garlic Restaurant, under whom the

deceased was employed. The incident took place in front of the

restaurant. No independent witness was produced on behalf of

the plaintiffs to prove the incident. P.W. 1 - Smt. Sita Devi was

wife of the deceased, who was not present on the spot at the time

of incident. P.W. 2 - Arjun Singh is not an independent witness.

His presence at the time of incident is doubtful. He further

submitted that after the incident, line was checked by the officials

of the Jd.V.V.N.L. but no fault was found in the line. The pole,

where the incident alleged to have happened, was encircled by

fencing. Hence, there was no occasion for the deceased to come

in contact with the pole. The trial court erred in disbelieving the

defence put up by the appellants. The amount of compensation

awarded by the trial court is also grossly excessive. He further

submitted that after installing the poles and electricity line, it were

handed over to the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. It was

(4 of 7) [CFA-231/2021]

responsibility of the Corporation to maintain the poles and

electricity line. Hence, learned counsel for the appellants prayed

to exonerate the appellants from any liability and set aside

impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court qua

appellants.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-

respondents submitted that after the incident, no enquiry was

conducted by the appellants. The witnesses produced on behalf of

the defendants also stated in their statements that after the

incident, supply of electricity was disconnected, which suggests

that the incident took place in the manner as put up by the

plaintiffs. He further submitted that P.W. 2 - Arjun Singh saw the

incident and there is no reason to discard his testimony. After the

incident, matter was reported to the police, who conducted

inquest proceedings under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and found the

incident true. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss this appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 supported the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants

except the argument raised by the appellants that the Municipal

Corporation was solely liable for this incident. He contended that

supply of the electricity was function of the Jd.V.V.N.L., hence, the

Municipal Corporation cannot be held liable, if the plaintiffs are

found to be entitled to get compensation.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing

the record of the trial court as also impugned judgment, this Court

finds that incident was reported to the police by father of the

deceased on 08.06.2012, upon which, proceedings under Section

174 of Cr.P.C. were conducted. During the proceedings,

exhaustive enquiry was made and after enquiry, police came to

(5 of 7) [CFA-231/2021]

the conclusion that this incident took place on account of

electrocution from electricity pole. The cause of death in the

postmortem report of the deceased Bhagwandas was also shown

as shock as a result of electric burns. The appellants have failed

to rebut the inquest report submitted by the police. It is also

pertinent to note that Jd.V.V.N.L. did not conduct any enquiry

regarding cause of accident. In absence of any contrary evidence

adduced by the appellants - Jd.V.V.N.L., there is no reason to

discard the evidence of the plaintiffs-respondents.

P.W. 2 Arjun Singh was an eye-witness, who was also

employed in the restaurant. He has corroborated the incident. As

per his statement, on 07.06.2012 in the night at 9.45 P.M.,

Bhagwandas came in contact with electricity pole and on account

of electrocution, he died. He informed to the owner of the

restaurant, who along with other employees came on the spot and

tried to part with Bhagwandas from electricity pole with the help

of wooden stick. Bhagwandas was taken to Manidhari Hospital

situated nearby, however, they refused to admit him, upon which,

he was taken to M.D.M. Hospital. In cross-examination, he stated

that there was divider on the road and electricity poles were on

the divider with the fencing. During cross-examination, the

statement made by P.W. 2 regarding incident taking place could

not be controverted.

The witnesses produced by the defendants' side also failed to

negate the factum of taking place of the incident in the manner as

alleged by the plaintiffs. D.W. 1 Damodar Prasad Dubey, who was

Assistant Engineer in Jd.V.V.N.L., came on the spot on the same

night. When he reached on the spot, road light was off. As per

his statement, someone disconnected the electricity. He also

(6 of 7) [CFA-231/2021]

admitted that cover of on & off switch installed on the electricity

pole was open. Although, he stated that there was no fault in the

electricity line but without any enquiry report on the part of the

appellants - Jd.V.V.N.L. and looking to the evidence led by the

plaintiffs duly verified by the inquest report under Section 174 of

Cr.P.C. prepared by the police, mere statement of this witness

cannot be relied upon.

In the considered opinion of this Court, act of supplying the

electricity and maintaining it, is joint liability of the Jd.V.V.N.L. and

the Municipal Corporation. The above act being hazardous in

nature involving so many risks. The defendants were under

obligation to take extra caution so that no untoward incident may

happen with any person going on the road. It cannot be expected

from a person going on the road to keep distance from the poles

at every time. The poles with boxes and electricity lines should be

maintained properly. It is also expected from the electricity

supplying authorities to conduct enquiry after happening of such

type of incident and fix responsibility of the officials at fault. In

the present case, there is no basis to exonerate the appellants and

the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur from their responsibility arisen

on account of this mishappening. The evidence produced by the

plaintiffs supported by the proceedings under Section 174 of

Cr.P.C. are sufficient to fasten liability on the defendants. Hence,

contention of learned counsel for the appellants raised in this

regard is rejected.

So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the trial

court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,88,652/-

along with interest @ 9% per annum. The deceased was aged

about 30 years. The multiplier for the age group between 26 to

(7 of 7) [CFA-231/2021]

30 years has been applied by the trial court. The trial court

assessed compensation under the head of loss of income on the

basis of minimum wages for an unskilled labour @ Rs. 3,822/- per

month, to which 40% amount of monthly income has been added

towards loss of future prospects. The plaintiffs are 5 in number.

The appellant No. 1 - Smt. Sita Devi is wife of the deceased,

whereas, appellants Nos. 2 to 5 are four minor children of the

deceased. Hence, the trial court rightly deducted 1/4th amount

from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses

while calculating compensation under the head of loss of income.

The calculation made by the trial court is just and fair. There is no

ground to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the

trial court. However, regarding rate of interest, looking to the

prevailing rate of interest in the nationalized banks, interest @ 9%

per annum awarded by the trial court is reduced to 6% per

annum.

Resultantly, the present first appeal fails and is dismissed

regarding liability of the defendants and quantum of

compensation, however, rate of interest awarded by the trial court

is modified from 9% to 6% per annum. The judgment and decree

dated 18.03.2021 passed by the trial court is affirmed with the

modification in the rate of interest from 9% to 6% per annum.

The decreetal amount shall be paid by the appellants positively by

31.05.2022.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

47-Inder/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)