The Junior Engineer vs Rodi Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 6018 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 175/2022

1. The Junior Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Kurabad, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Kurabad, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Chairman, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through Assistant Engineer, Kurabad, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Appellants

Versus

1. Smt. Rodi Bai W/o Shri Dalichand Bheel, B/c Bheel, R/o Village Charmar Talab, P.s. Kurabad, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Ms. Laxmi Kumari D/o Shri Dalichand Bheel, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rodi Bai W/o Shri Dalichand Bheel. B/c Bheel, R/o Village Charmar Talab, P.s. Kurabad, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.)

3. Ms Priya Kumari D/o Shri Dalichand Bheel, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rodi Bai W/o Shri Dalichand Bheel. B/c Bheel, R/o Village Charmar Talab, P.s. Kurabad, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.)

4. Virendra Bheel S/o Shri Dalichand Bheel, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rodi Bai W/o Shri Dalichand Bheel. B/c Bheel, R/o Village Charmar Talab, P.s. Kurabad, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.) .

                                                                 ----Respondents



For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Himanshu Purohit





                                          (2 of 5)                        [CFA-175/2022]



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                   Order

25/04/2022

The instant first appeal has been filed by the defendant

- appellants herein against the judgment and decree dated

29.10.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur

in Case No. 161/2018 (CIS No. 161/2018) titled as 'Smt. Rodi Bai

& Ors. vs. Junior Engineer, AVVNL & Ors', whereby suit filed by the

plaintiffs-respondents herein under the provisions of Fatal Accident

Act, 1855 was decreed.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at

admission stage and perused the impugned judgment and decree

alongwith the record made available by counsel for the appellant.

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

Plaintiffs-respondents herein filed a suit for

compensation under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855,

stating therein that on 11.3.2018 at 6:00 AM deceased Dalichand

aged about 28 years was cutting wheat crop in his agriculture

filed. At that time, sparking was made in the wires passing

through his agriculture field and one wire fell down upon

Dalichand on account of which he died on the spot. This accident

happened on account of negligence on the part of Ajmer Vidhyut

Vitran Nigam Ltd. For so many times, complaints were made by

the villagers to cure the electric lines, however, of no avail.

Deceased Dalichand was a Teacher earning his livelihood by taking

tuition. He was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from the tuition

and by running grossery shop, in addition to agricultural work in

spare time.

(3 of 5) [CFA-175/2022]

In reply, allegations made in the application were

denied. As per the case of defendants, deceased Dalichand was

guilty of stealing electricity. The accident took place while

deceased was indulging in above act of stealing electricity. No

complaint was filed by anybody regarding sparking in the electric

lines. Plaintiffs-respondents herein have failed to prove the income

of the deceased. Defendants - appellants prayed to allow the

appeal and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking

compensation.

Learned trial court framed issues and after recording

the statement of both the parties, heard the matter finally and

decided it vide impugned judgment and decree and awarded a

compensation of Rs. 11,67,928/- in favour of the plaintiffs, who

are wife and three minor children of the deceased.

Learned trial court came to the conclusion that the

matter was reported to the police upon which proceedings under

Section 174 Cr.P.C. were conducted. Learned trial court was of the

view that this incident took place on account of falling of electric

wire on the deceased. Defendants-appellants were found negligent

in maintaining the electric lines.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

learned trial court was not right in fastening the liability on the

appellants. Before the incident, no complaint was filed by anybody

to the officers of defendants - Department regarding any sparking

in electric lines. Deceased suffered electric burns while interfering

with the electric lines with the aim to steal the electricity for which

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. is not liable to pay the

compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits

(4 of 5) [CFA-175/2022]

that the Rules provides for awarding maximum Rs.5 Lakhs as

compensation in such type of cases.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the appellants and material available on record, this

Court is of the opinion that defendants-appellants have failed to

rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiffs-respondents herein

regarding incident taking place on account of negligence in

maintaining the electric lines. Plaintiffs have corroborated its

averments by producing oral as well as documentary evidence. It

is not in dispute that cause of death of Dalichand was shock due

to electric burns. It is also pertinent to note that proceedings

under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were conducted by the police and the

police after thorough inquiry came to the conclusion that electric

wires fell down on Dalichand which caused his death. No inquiry

report has been produced by the appellants. In such a situation,

the evidence produced by the plaintiffs remained unrebutted and

liability fastened on the the defendants-appellants by the trial

court is based on evidence. There is no reason to take a different

view in this regard.

Regarding calculation of compensation is concerned,

the same is just and fair. The deceased was aged about 28 years.

Though, plaintiffs have prayed to calculate the compensation

taking monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/-,

however, the learned trial court assessed the loss of income based

on minimum wages of skilled labour prevalent at that time.

Learned trial court also added 40% of the amount to the monthly

income while calculating the loss of income. Plaintiffs are wife and

three minor children of the deceased. In view of number of

dependents, learned trial court rightly deducted ¼ amount

(5 of 5) [CFA-175/2022]

towards personal expenses of the deceased. The amount of

compensation awarded by the trial court is just and fair, which

need not to be interfered with. There is no ground to admit the

present first appeal against the impugned judgment and decree

passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents.

Accordingly, the instant first appeal being devoid of

merit is dismissed at admission stage.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J 1-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)