Rajasthan High Court
A V V N L vs Gyarsilal And Ors on 3 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 230/2003
1. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur Through Its
Chairman
2. Superintendent Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited O And M, Sikar
3. Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited O
And M, Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar
----Appellants
Versus
1. Gyarsi Lal S/o Shri Chhoturam, R/o Deenga Ki Dhani, Tan
Sihodi, Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar
2. Ram Kumar S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal, R/o Deenga Ki Dhani, Tan
Sihodi, Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar
3. Kr. Sohani D/o Shri Gyarsi Lal, R/o Deenga Ki Dhani, Tan
Sihodi, Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar
4. Devi Lal S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal, R/o Deenga Ki Dhani, Tan
Sihodi, Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar
5. Kr. Mishri D/o Shri Gyarsi Lal, R/o Deenga Ki Dhani, Tan
Sihodi, Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar
6. Nemi Chandra S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal, R/o Deenga Ki Dhani,
Tan Sihodi, Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 03/03/2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : March 08, 2022
BY THE COURT:
This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the
judgment and decree dated 6-3-2003 passed by the Additional District
Judge No.2, Sikar, Camp Srimadhopur, in Suit No.9/2002, whereby and
(2 of 6) [CFA-230/2003]
whereunder decreeing the suit allowed damages to plaintiffs under Section
1(A) of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
The facts of the case are that respondent plaintiffs (hereafter `the
plaintiffs') filed a civil suit claiming damages for electrocution with
Smt.Santosh Devi wife of plaintiff Gyarsi Lal and mother of other plaintiffs,
who died at the spot on 14-3-2000 at 4.00 PM because of electrocution,
while she was working in her agricultural field. It was averred that 11000
KV line was going over their agricultural land and lines were not properly
insulated due to which the deceased Santosh Devi while irrigating crops
sustained electric current and died on spot. Alleging negligence on the part
of defendant company suit was filed claiming damages to the tune of
Rs.48,25,000/-.
On issuing notices appellants-defendants (hereafter `the defendants')
filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and stated
that because of bad weather some wires touched the ground on account of
which the accident occurred and the deceased died. The defendants did not
receive any complaint regarding faulty electric lines and it was the duty of
(3 of 6) [CFA-230/2003]
plaintiffs to take proper precaution while working nearby electric lines and
no liability could be shifted upon defendants.
On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed two issues.
Plaintiffs examined four witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. Defendants
examined four witnesses. The trial court considering oral and documentary
evidence led by both parties came to the conclusion that from the evidence
of witnesses of defendants themselves negligence on the part of defendant
was proved and assessing the income of deceased to be Rs.30,000/- per year,
and that since she was 30 years of age at the time of fatal accident she would
have earned further 15 years, and in such manner damages has been
awarded to plaintiffs Rs.4,50,000/- and the issue No.1 was decided in favour
of plaintiffs. Accordingly issue No.2 was also decided against defendants and
in favour of plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 6-3-2003. Of the
amount of award Rs.50,000/- in the name of each children was directed to
keep in fixed deposit in bank till the date of their achieving maturity. Rest
amount of award was to be paid to plaintiff Gyarsi Lal husband of deceased.
Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 6-3-2003 present first
appeal has been filed.
(4 of 6) [CFA-230/2003]
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned
judgment and decree as also other material available on record.
Learned counsel for defendants has submitted that the impugned
judgment and decree is liable to be set aside as the trial court has wrongly
applied multiplier in awarding compensation while the suit in issue was
filed for damages. It has been further submitted that trial court has relied
only on oral evidence to conclude for negligence of defendants. There was
no complaint regarding broken wires. Therefore findings of the trial court
are perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be
quashed and set aside.
Per contra, counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that the trial court has
not committed any illegality in awarding damages to plaintiffs for death of
not only an earning member of the family but she was an important member
of the family. Due to her death minor children were deprived of love and
affection of mother and the husband lost his life partner. The trial court has
relied not only on oral and documentary evidence produced by plaintiffs but
also on evidence of defendants to conclude for negligence of defendants, as
defendants' witness Dw.3 Badri had admitted for broken wires prior to fatal
accident of death of deceased and that insulator was not fixed on wires. This
(5 of 6) [CFA-230/2003]
fact was also admitted by defendants that iron pole was replaced with
cemented pole after the fatal accident.
Heard. Considered.
It transpires from the impugned judgment that defendants' witnesses
themselves had admitted that insulator was not fixed on wires and wires
were broken. Dw.1 Ravindra Kumar had also admitted that if any squirrel
comes on wire insulator got faulty. This witness also admitted that after the
fatal accident iron pole was replaced from cemented pole. Other witness of
defendant Dw.3 Badri had admitted that 15 days prior to fatal accident
electric line was broken which was joined by him. In such circumstances in
view of oral and documentary evidence of both parties the trial court came
to the conclusion of negligence on the part of defendants and decided issues
in favour of plaintiffs. Considering a meager earning of deceased only
Rs.30,000/- per year, from the work in agricultural field 5 bighas and
catering buffaloes, and treating the same upto the age of 45 years assessed
the damages to be paid to plaintiffs for loss of wife and mother of minor
children. The assessment of income of deceased and multiplier of 15 only for
a lady of 30 years cannot be said to be illogical for awarding damages to
plaintiffs, particularly when plaintiffs have not prayed for enhancement of
compensation. As such there is no force in the first appeal and the impugned
(6 of 6) [CFA-230/2003]
judgment and decree require no interference by this court and the same are
confirmed.
Consequently, the first appeal is dismissed.
Of the amount of damages deposited by defendants AVVNL, 50%
amount has already been disbursed to plaintiffs pursuant to order of this
court dated 13-5-2003. Remaining 50% amount of damages be disbursed to
plaintiffs as directed by the trial court. Record of trial court be sent to trial
court for completion of the exercise of disbursement of damages amount.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
