Rajasthan High Court

A V V N L vs Rameshwar Lal on 5 July, 2022

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 518/2008

 1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., through General Manager
 2. Supdt. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sabalpura Power
 House, Sikar.
 3. Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Laxmangarh.
 4. Asstt. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Laxmangarh.

                                                                    ----Appellant

                                      Versus

 1. Rameshwar Lal S/o Hanmana Ram
 2. Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Rameshwar Lal
 by caste Jat resident of Bhilunda Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar.

                                                                  ----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 73/2009

1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., through General Manager

2. Supdt. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sabalpura Power House, Sikar.

3. Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Laxmangarh.

4. Asstt. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Laxmangarh.

----Appellant

Versus

1. Rameshwar Lal S/o Hanmana Ram

2. Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Rameshwar Lal by caste Jat resident of Bhilunda Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar.

                                                                  ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)           :     Ram Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s)          :     Amit Singh Shekhawat



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                  Judgment

05/07/2022

1. The first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by appellants

defendants Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereafter `the AVVNL')

(2 of 11) [CFA-518/2008]

challenging the judgment and decree dated 25-7-2008 passed by the

Additional District Judge No.1, Sikar, in Suit No.106/2005 (52/2005),

whereby and whereunder the suit for compensation under the Indian Fatal

Accidents Act, 1855 was decreed, compensation Rs.1,42,000/- to

respondents plaintiffs (hereafter `the plaintiffs') against appellants AVVNL

on account of death of their son due to electrocution, was allowed.

2. The plaintiffs have filed cross objection for enhancement of

compensation against the judgment dated 25-7-2008 whereby

compensation has been awarded to plaintiffs.

3. The facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a civil suit claiming

compensation on account of accidental death of their son Ramswaroop, aged

14 years, who sustained electrocution on 5-2-2005 and died during the

course of treatment. He sustained electrocution, while he was working in

agricultural field. It was averred that 11000 KV line was going over their

agricultural land in khasra No.177 village Bhilund Tehsil Laxmangarh

District Sikar and lines were not properly insulated, wires were hanging at

low level and loose. About not fixing insulator and looseness of wires were

reported by elder son of plaintiffs Mahaveer to AVVNL, but the same was not

heard. Police conducted proceedings under Section 174 CrPC. It was

averred that the deceased Ramswaroop was a student of 8 th class and was

(3 of 11) [CFA-518/2008]

helping parents by all means. There were all hopes with their son. The

defendant AVVNL did not take care of complaint made by Mahaveer elder

son of plaintiffs. As such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit

was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15,66,000/-.

3. On issuing notices AVVNL filed written statement and denied the

allegation of negligence and stated that wires were in good condition and no

complaint was ever made to the department regarding fault in the line. It

was alleged that electricity was being used illegally and while taking the

electric line illegally at home, deceased got electrocution due to his own

carelessness and negligence. Thus, defendants admitted the fact of accident

and did not disputed the factum of death of deceased because of

electrocution. It was the duty of plaintiffs to take precaution while working

nearby electric lines and no liability could be shifted upon defendants.

4. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed three issues.

Issue No.1 pertains to as to whether plaintiffs' son Ram Swaroop died due to

electrocution on 5-2-2005 on account of carelessness and negligence of

defendant? Issue No.2 pertains to as to whether plaintiffs' on account of

death of their son due to electrocution, are entitled for compensation of

Rs.17,16,000/- against defendant? Issue No.3 pertains to relief?

(4 of 11) [CFA-518/2008]

5. Plaintiffs examined six witnesses and exhibited 8 documents.

Defendants examined five witnesses and exhibited twenty two documents.

6. The trial court on appreciation of evidence of both parties oral and

documentary came to the conclusion that officials of AVVNL did not visit the

site prior to accident or thereafter. The defence of AVVNL that accident of

electrocution was not occurred at field but at house where electricity was

used illegally was disbelieve on the ground that defendants did not examine

any witness from the village whom statements were exhibited. Official

witnesses were disbelieved on the ground that they were not present at the

place of accident. Regarding allegation of theft it was observed that it was

the duty of the department to check and control illegal activity.

Consequently the issue No.1 was decided in favour of plaintiffs.

With regard to issue No.2 regarding compensation the trial court

relying on second schedule of Section 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act income

of deceased being below 15 years of age deemed as Rs.15,000/- per year and

reducing one third of which assessed Rs.10,000/- per year for calculation

for compensation to parents and applying the multiplier of 13 paid

Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation, on account of pain and suffering for loss of

son Rs.10,000/- and for funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-, thus assessed total

compensation of Rs.1,42,000/-.

(5 of 11) [CFA-518/2008]

Accordingly, vide judgment dated 25-7-2008 the suit was decreed for

payment of compensation Rs.1,42,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @

6% p.a., from 4-7-2005 which was to be paid to plaintiffs in equal measure.

7. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree first appeal has been filed

by AVVNL challenging the impugned judgment. And cross objection have

been filed by plaintiffs for enhancement of compensation.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned

judgment and decree as also other material available on record.

9. Learned counsel for defendants AVVNL has submitted that the

impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside as the trial court has

not considered the fact that fatal accident was not occurred at the field but

at the house when electricity was being used illegally. It has been further

submitted that trial court has not considered this aspect of the case that

there was no complaint regarding leakage of electricity current in the pole.

The accident occurred when deceased put electric wire illegally upon the

11000 KV line, in presence of witnesses, whose statements were exhibited.

FIR of the accident was lodged after one month and during investigation by

police it was proved that no 11000 KV line was crossing the field of

plaintiffs and no wire of 11000 KV line was broken. Thus there was no

negligence on the part of AVVNL. Therefore findings of the trial court are

(6 of 11) [CFA-518/2008]

perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed

and set aside.

10. On examination of record it appears that evidence have been led by

both parties in following manner:

Pw.1 Rameshwar Lal stated in his statement that on 5-2-2005 at 7.00 PM while his son Ramswaroop was changing pipr of shower sustained electric current from the wire of pole near well. He stated despite several requests insulator was not installed by officials. Pw.2 Jitendra, Pw.3 Balbir, Pw.4 Mahaveer, Pw.5 Rameshwar and Pw.6 Hemaram supported statements of the plaintiff and stated that on hearing hue and cry they rushed to well and found son of plaintiff stuck with electric wire, who was taken to hospital where he died. They also stated that despite several requests to AVVNL insulator was not installed and electrocution was occurred due to negligence of defendants.

In rebuttal defendants examined Om Prakash as NAW.1, who stated that there was no negligence of AVVNL but since the electricity was being used illegally at home and while deceased was repairing tape got electrocution. In his cross examination he admitted that deceased died because of electrocution. NAW.2 S.K. Mehta, NAW.3 Sitaram deposed same statements. NAW.4 Bhagwan Dev stated that he conducted enquiry in village and recorded statements of witnesses including the Sarpanch. He exhibited documents Ex.A-17 to A-22. NAW.5 Bhivsingh stated that he did not receive any complaint about breaking of wire or that any wire fell on LT line. He however admitted on 7-2-2005 when he visited the village he came to know about death of deceased due to electric current from the line which was illegally taken from the well at home.

11. As per evidence on record plaintiffs have proved that defendants

remain negligent and careless in maintaining electricity line and death of

plaintiffs' son occurred due to electrocution, for which defendants are liable.

The factum of death occurred due to electrocution is well proved by panch

nama (Ex.2) and post mortem report (Ex.4), as also, as per admission of

(7 of 11) [CFA-518/2008]

witness of defendant in his cross examination. In such scenario, the onus

shifted upon defendants and that officials of AVVNL failed to prove their

case that fatal accident was occurred at the house and not at field. The

AVVNL did not examine independent witnesses, whose statements were

exhibited, only officials were examined who were not present at the site nor

did they visit the site after the accident despite coming to know about death

of deceased. Therefore, the plea of defendant was rightly disbelieved by the

trial court. Documentary and oral evidence of plaintiffs have been rightly

believed to decide the issue in favour of plaintiffs. The delay of one month in

lodging FIR by plaintiff was not found fatal by the trial court relying on

judgment in the case West Bangal State Electricity Board Vs. Sachin Banerjee

[2002 ACJ 337]. The trial court has not committed any illegality in holding

the AVVNL responsible for death due to electrocution, which is well proved

by plaintiffs' oral and documentary evidence.

12. In case of Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi [(2000)3 SCC

754] the Apex Court held that once it is established that death occurred on

account of electrocution while walking on road necessarily authorities

concerned must be held responsible for their negligence and compensation

was awarded.

(8 of 11) [CFA-518/2008]

13. In case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar [AIR 2000 SC 551]

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

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

(9 of 11) [CFA-518/2008]

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. In Kumari Kani Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board [2016(3) CDR

1499 (Raj.)], this court applied the principle of strict liability and held that

"Electricity Company is liable to pay compensation when accident occurs

because of such electricity lines which are not maintained properly". To hold

so reliance was placed on Raman Vs. State of Haryana [2015 ACJ 484],

wherein the Apex Court held that "on failure to use all reasonable means to

prevent escape of an inherently dangerous thing, which by nature electricity

is, the standard of care will be very high and the onus would on the supplier

to show that there was not negligence."

15. In the Executive Engineer Vs. Pramod [2015(1) KCC R 850] Karnataka

High Court held that "the Electricity Board cannot absolve liability on

grounds that accident took place due to illegal act on part of victim in trying

(10 of 11) [CFA-518/2008]

to draw power from mainline unauthorisedly when once the death is to be

in the context of functioning of Board. Principle of strict liability applies and

Board is bound to compensate the claimants".

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

trial court on issues No.1 and 2 are found well within jurisdiction and

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

case of plaintiffs where their son died due to electrocution because of

negligence on the part of defendant AVVNL in not maintaining electric line