Raj.Rajya Vidhyut Vitran Nigam vs Smt.Ramwati Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 4724 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 2/1990

 Rajasthan     Vidhyut    Vitran      Nigam        Ltd.,     Jaipur   through   its
 Secretary.
                                                     ---- Defendant- Appellant
                                     Versus
 1. Smt.Ramwati W/o Shr Mohar Singh
 2. Hukam Singh S/o Shri Mohar Singh
 3. Kum. Pooran Devi, daughter of Shri Mohar Singh
 4. Kum. Gyasin d/o Shri Mohar Singh
 all by caste Lodha, resident of Kumher District Bharatpur.
                                                   ---- Plaintiffs- Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Indresh Sharma
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                  Judgment

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                                       : 05/07/2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                                     : July _12th_, 2022
BY THE COURT:

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

judgment and decree dated 11-4-1989 passed by the District Judge

Bharatpur, in Suit No.86/1986, whereby and whereunder decreeing the suit

claiming compensation under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 allowed

compensation Rs.90,000/- to plaintiffs-claimants (hereafter `the plaintiffs')

against the appellant-defendant Rajasthan Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

(2 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

(hereafter `the defendant') on account of death of husband and father of

claimants due to electrocution.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent plaintiffs (hereafter `the

plaintiffs') filed a civil suit claiming compensation on account of accidental

death of their husband and father Mohar Singh, aged 35 years, who died at

the spot on 13-6-1984 at Helak gate because of electrocution, while he was

going for earning his labour he met with a wire lying on road and sustained

electrocution. It was averred that proper insulator was not fixed due to

which while wire was broken and lying on road current was passing

through, therefore, the defendant was responsible for such lapse. It was

averred that the deceased was earning Rs.15/- per day and spent for family

without any expenses for himself. As such alleging negligence on the part of

defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of

Rs.1,54,000/-.

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

allegation of negligence and stated that there was heavy rain, thunderstorm

and hailstorm in the night of 12 and 13 June, 1984, due to which the wire

was broken and on receiving information about death of deceased electricity

was disconnected in the area. However, they admitted the fact of accident

(3 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

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

electrocution.

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

First, whether at the time of death deceased Mohar Singh, 35 years old was

healthy, not suffering from any disease and was earning from agricultural

labour? Second, whether broken wires were lying on road and current was

passing due to negligence of officials of defendant and when Mohar Singh

was going for labour at field, due to dark stepped on broken wire and stuck

to it due to which he died by electrocution? Third, whether plaintiffs are

entitled for compensation Rs.1,54,000/- due to death of Mohar Singh?

Fourth, Relief?

5. Plaintiffs examined three witnesses and exhibited one document Post

Mortem Report (Ex.1).

In rebuttal, defendant examined one witness Subhash Chandra

Sharma, Junior Engineer and exhibited no document.

6. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both

parties. Pw.1 Ramvati stated in her statements that her husband was 35

years old and was earning from labour. Pw.2 Dr. Suresh Chand stated that

he conducted post mortem (Ex.1) of Mohar Singh and all internal organs of

(4 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

deceased were found healthy. He further stated that cause of death was

electric shock.

On the basis of such evidence of witnesses of plaintiffs and document,

not rebutted by any evidence of defendant's side, the trial court has

concluded that the deceased at the time of his death was healthy person and

decided the issue No.1 in favour of plaintiffs.

Regarding issue No.2 the trial court considered statements of Pw.1

Ramvati, who stated that on the day of accident her husband went for

earning in field and when she reached at the site leg of her husband was

stuck on electric wire. When she reached at site there was day light. In her

cross she stated that the accident occurred at 5.00 AM. Pw.2 Dr. Suresh

Chand stated that on inspection of body he found burn injuries on right

hand, chest, left foot. The deceased died due to electric current. He

conducted post mortem of deceased vide post mortem report (Ex.1),

according to which there were burn injuries on his right hand, chest and left

leg. Pw.3 Ramjilal stated that Mohar Singh was a labourer. On hearing hues

and cry he reached on the spot and found deceased stuck with electricity

wire. At the place of accident wires were open for last 2-3 days. In cross

examination he stated that wires were lying on dol for last 2-3 days. On last

day there was storm due to which wire came on road. He further stated that

(5 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

in office of electricity this matter was reported by son of Amri of nearby

village. He did not see any employee of electricity department to have visited

the site.

Defendant's sole witness Dw.1 Subhash Chand Sharma, Junior

Engineer deposed in his statement that in the night of 12 and 13 June, 1984

there was storm due to which wire was broken at Helak gate. Prior to that

wires were in correct position. As soon as he came to know about breaking

of wire he disconnected electricity supply. In cross examination he admitted

on receiving information about death of deceased he reached at the spot.

Although he deposed that he visited the site 2-3 days ago, but he did not

prepare any report of that visit. He also admitted that the binding of wires

was done but no report of such work was prepared. He also denied to have

any knowledge about the status of wire as to how much they were old.

Learned trial court applied the principle of Res Ipso Loquitur and

placed reliance upon the judgments in State of Punjab Vs. Mst. Champa

Mangatram [AIR 1971 Punjab & Haryana 373] and Smt. Anguri Devi Vs.

Municipal Corporation Delhi [AIR 1988 Delhi 305].

Considering evidence of both parties the trial court came to the

conclusion that deceased died due to electrocution at Helak gate when came

into contact of broken electric wire and the electricity department was

(6 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

responsible for such accident consequently the issue No.2 has been decided

in favour of plaintiffs.

Issue No.3 regarding amount of compensation the trial considered

statement of Pw.1 Ramvati and the fact that deceased was maintaining his

wife and four children, at the time of death he was 35 years old, he was

earning Rs.15/- per day, out of which he could have spent for himself only

Rs.3/-, as such he could spent Rs.11/- for family. As such considering all

aspects in this regard assessed Rs..300/- per month and applying multiplier

of 25 assessed the compensation as Rs.90,000/- and decided the issue in

favour of plaintiffs.

7. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 11-4-1989 the suit was decreed for

payment of compensation Rs.90,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @ 6%

p.a.

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

been filed.

9. Vide order dated 15-2-1990, on the stay application of appellant, this

court stayed the execution of decree for payment of compensation of

Rs.90,000/- subject to filing undertaking by defendant that in case of

dismissal of appeal the defendant would pay compensation amount along

(7 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

with 15% interest. The appellant in furtherance thereof submitted

undertaking agreeing to pay 15% interest on the compensation amount.

10. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned

judgment and decree as also other material available on record.

11. Learned counsel for appellant defendant has submitted that the

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

not considered the fact that statement of Pw.2 Dr. Suresh Chand could not

be believed as for the first time he conducted post mortem of deceased,

because due to electrocution all organs of deceased could not be found

healthy. There was no evidence that defendant was ever negligent in

maintaining electric wires. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor was wrongly

applied. The trial court did not consider the fact that wire was broken due to

storm and the department was not responsible for the act of the God.

Holding that deceased could not have job on all days of month, still the trial

court has assessed the contribution as Rs.300/- per month as such the trial

court has wrongly assessed the compensation. No negligence on the part of

defendant can be held. The findings of the trial court are perverse and the

impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set aside.

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

considered evidence of both parties and has rightly decided issues according

(8 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

to evidence on record and has rightly awarded the compensation to

plaintiffs.

13. Chapter IV of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 relates to General

Safety Requirements and Rules 29 and 77(3) thereof read as under:-

29. Construction, installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric supply lines and apparatus.-- (1) All electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient ratings for power, insulation and estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty which they may be required to perform under the environmental conditions of installation, and shall be construed, installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, the relevant code of practice of the Bureau of Indian Standards including National Electrical Code if any may be followed to carry out the purposes of this rule and in the event of any inconsistency, the provision of these rules shall prevail.

(3) The material and apparatus used shall conform to the relevant specifications of the Bureau of Indian Standards where such specifications have already been laid down.

Rule 77 (3) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 provides that:-

77. Clearance above ground of the lowest conductor.

              (1)     x        x    x
              (2)     x        x    x

(3) No conductor of an overhead line including service lines, erected elsewhere than along or across any street shall be at a height less than-

              (a) for low, medium and high voltage lines upto
              and including 11,000 volts, if bare                            4.6 metres
              (b) for low, medium and high voltage lines upto
              and including 11,000 volts, if insulated                 4.0 metres
              (c) for high voltage lines above 11,000 volts            5.2 metres

A perusal of aforesaid Rules 29 and 77(3) of the Rules of 1956 clearly

provides for necessary requirements for general safety to be followed by

(9 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

defendant, according to which the defendant is duty bound to follow

requirements properly in letter and spirits of the Rules of 1956.

14. On appreciation of evidence on record as a whole, findings of the trial

court are found well supported with evidence, both oral and documentary.

The trial court has applied the principle of res ipso loquitur as well and this

court does not find any perversity, illegality or infirmity in the findings of

the trial court. This is a clear case of negligence on the part of defendant by

non maintaining Electricity Line. It is undisputed fact that broken electricity

wire having current was lying on road and deceased died due to coming

into contact of electricity wire. Post Mortem Report (Ex.1) proves death of

deceased due to electrocution, which has been supported by Pw.2 Dr. Suresh

Chandra and Pw.3 Ramji Lal, who in his statement has stated that electricity

wires were lying open for last 2-3 days prior to the accident. And on

hearing hues and cry he reached at the spot and found the deceased lying on

road stuck with electricity wires. In support of plea taken by defendant that

wire was broken in the night of accident i.e. 12 and 13 June, 1984, because

of heavy rain, thunderstorm and hailstorm has not been proved by any

independent witness. Nor any such defence was put in cross examination to

Pw.1 and Pw.3. Pw.3 Ramji Lal has stated that wires were lying on dol for

last 2-3 days and this fact was reported by son of Amri, in reply of which

(10 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

Dw.1 Subhash chand although has stated that binding was done but he

denied for preparing any such report. Consequently the plea of defendant of

rain and storm in night also does not support the case of defendant. The

defendant has miserably failed to produce any document on record to prove

site inspection or maintaining electricity wires. The defendant has not

disputed the occurrence of accident and the fact that deceased died due to

electrocution because he came into contact of live electricity wire lying on

road. Once it is established that death has been occurred due to

electrocution on road, the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability

comes in play. The defendant 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 defendant.

15. 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.

16. The principle of law as enunciated in case of Parvati Devi (supra) was

followed by the Rajasthan High Court in case of Rajasthan State Electricity

(11 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

Board Vs. Smt. Sukhiya [2000 DNJ (Raj.) 594]. Relevant para 14 thereof

reads thus:-

14. It was the duty of the defendants-appellants to install electric wires of adequate strength and to carry out proper maintenance of the electric line. If they failed to perform this duty, they must be liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of deceased. In Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi reported in [(2000)3 SCC 754], Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-

"The appellant moved the High Court of Delhi claiming compensation as the husband of appellant-1 died on account of electrocution while walking on the road. That the death was on account of electric shock is established in view of the CFSL report from Calcutta. But as the appellants could not produce relevant materials indicating the negligence of any particular officer or the authority, the High Court refused to award compensation. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed. Once it is established that the death occurred on account of electrocution while walking on the road, necessarily the authorities concerned must be held to be negligent and therefore, in the case in hand, it would be NDMC who could be responsible for the death in question...."

17. 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

(12 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

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 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."

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

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

(13 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

"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."

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

trial court are found based on evidence on record and are well within

jurisdiction and parameters of law, which do not suffer from any perversity.

This is a proved case of plaintiffs where their bread earner died due to

electrocution because of negligence on the part of defendant in not

maintaining electric line properly. 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 3, there is no

illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial court.

20. Issue No.3 pertains to assessment of quantum of compensation.

Deceased Mohar Singh was a person of 35 years of age, who died because of

electrocution and his dependents plaintiffs have filed suit for compensation.

Although plaintiffs claimed for compensation of Rs.1,54,000/-, but the trial

(14 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

court taking into account deceased's income as a simple labourer at the rate

of Rs.300/- per month and multiplier of 25 was applied, and assessed the

compensation of Rs.90,000/- only. This court finds that compensation

awarded is lower side, however, 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.

21. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the impugned judgment

passed by the trial court requires no interference by this court and the same

deserves to be upheld and is upheld. There is no force in the first appeal filed

by defendants and the same is accordingly dismissed.

22. Vide order dated 15-2-1990 execution of decree was stayed by this

court subject to condition that appellant defendant shall file undertaking to

the effect that in case of dismissal of appeal, the appellant shall pay

compensation amount along with interest @ 15%, instead of 6% as awarded

by the trial court.

23. On dismissal of appeal in default, plaintiffs filed execution petition

and the defendant deposited Rs.2,95,000/- which was paid to plaintiffs.

Lateron the appeal was restored. Again the same was dismissed for non

appearance. Rs.1,18,000/- were attached, whether this additional amount is

deposited with the executing court or has been disbursed, it is not clear from

(15 of 15) [CFA-2/1990]

the record. Counsel for both parties could not clarify the factum of

disbursement of this amount.

24. This court is of the opinion that when the defendant pursuant to stay

order of this court 15-2-1990 had filed undertaking before the trial court to

pay 15% interest, instead of depositing the whole compensation amount, the

defendant is bound to pay interest @ 15% on the compensation amount of

Rs.90,000/- abiding its own undertaking, and it cannot raise any grievance

or claim for 6% interest. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the

compensation amount of Rs.90,000/- with interest @ 15% from the date of

award, and according to such calculation, if any amount is yet payable to

claimants, same would be paid by defendants, after adjustment of the

amount already paid and received by claimants.

25. Record of the trial court be sent back.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

Arn/98

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)