Rajasthan High Court

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam ... vs Smt Sohani And Ors on 18 November, 2022

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 258/1999

 1. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
 through its Chairman.
 2. Chief Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Jaipur.
 3. Superintending Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sikar
 Circle, Jaipur.
 4. Assistant Engineer (O&M), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Losal
 District Sikar.

                                                       ----Appellants- Defendants

                                       Versus

 1. Smt. Sohani W/o late Shri Kushala Ram Jat aged about 35 years
 r/o village Bhagatpura, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar.
 2. Kumari Sushila aged 12 years d/o late Shri Kushala Ram Jat.
 3. Kumari Santosh aged 10 years d/o late Shri Kushala Ram Jat.
 4. Ashok aged 6 years s/o late Shri Kushala Ram Jat.
 5. Kumari Parmeshwari aged 3 years d/o late Shri Kushala Ram Jat.
 6. Kumari Geeta aged 1 years d/o late Shri Kushala Ram Jat.
 All minors through their natural guardian & mother Smt. Sohani W/o
 late Shri Kushla Ram Jat r/o village Bhagatpura, Tehsil Danta
 Ramgarh, District Sikar.

                                                        ----Respondents- Plaintiffs


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Alok Garg, through VC
For Respondent(s)           :     None



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                   Judgment

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                              : 16/11/2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                       : November _18th_, 2022


BY THE COURT:

1. This first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC

has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1999 passed by

the Additional District Judge No.1 Sikar, in Suit No.99/1998, whereby and

whereunder decreeing the suit claiming compensation under the Indian

(2 of 8) [CFA-258/1999]

Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 allowed compensation Rs.2,88,000/- to plaintiffs

against appellant AVVNL on account of death of their husband and father

due to electrocution.

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

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

death of their husband and father Kushla Ram, aged 37 years, who died on

21-1-1997 because of electrocution, while he tried to start pump-set

installed at the well of his field. The pump-set was burnt due to heavy load

of electricity. It was stated that electric connection was taken since 17-1-

1995 and near the well of plaintiffs there was electricity line of 11000 KV of

which wires were loose. Wire of that electricity line was broken and fell on

the electricity line from which connection was in the pump-set and when

deceased Kushla Ram tried to start pump-set died due to electrocution.

Report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station Losal. The accident

was occurred due to negligence in maintaining electricity line by

defendants. As such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was

filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.26,65,000/-.

3. On issuing notices appellants-defendants filed written statement and

denied the allegation of negligence and stated that there was no complaint

regarding loose-wires. The pump-set was installed in a gumti, for which the

deceased himself was responsible and defendants were not liable for the

accident. It was also stated that no information regarding death of Kushla

ram was given to the department. Therefore, defendants are not responsible

for the death of deceased. Defendants did not commit any carelessness in

their duty and accordingly prayed for dismissal of suit.

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

First, whether on 21-1-1997 at 8.00 AM due to felling of wire of electricity

(3 of 8) [CFA-258/1999]

line 11000 KV on the domestic electricity line overload electricity passed

due to which deceased died and his other articles burnt? Second, Whether

due to the fatal accident claimants are entitled for compensation of

Rs.26,65,000/-? Third, Relief?

5. Plaintiffs examined two witnesses Pw.1 Sohni Devi and Pw.2 Hanman

Ram and defendants examined Dw.1 Doodwal, Asstt. Engineer and Dw.2

Girdhari Puri.

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

parties. Plaintiffs proved their case that deceased died due to electrocution

because of negligence on the part of department in maintaining electricity

line of 11000 KV. Pw.2 Hanmana Ram stated in his evidence that he along

with deceased made written complaint regarding loose wire of electricity

line and defendants' witnesses also admitted that because of breaking of

wire of electricity line of 11000 KV on the LT line overload electricity passed

in the pump-set due to which starter burnt and the deceased died. The trial

court held that it was the duty of the department to maintain electricity line

at appropriate height for which no complaint was required as such the

department was responsible for the accident. The death of deceased due to

electrocution was proved from post mortem report and photographs of the

site and the issue No.1 decided in favour of plaintiffs.

Issue No.2, regarding compensation, the trial court considered that

deceased might have earned Rs.50/- per day from his agricultural work, as

such his monthly income was assessed at Rs.1500/- and applying multiplier

of 23 assessed the amount Rs.4,14,000/- out of which 1/3 amount was

deducted for personal expenses of deceased and assessed the compensation

at Rs.2,76,000/-. For funeral expenses awarded Rs.2,000/-, for love and

affection for wife and children Rs.10,000/-. Thus issue No.2 decided in

(4 of 8) [CFA-258/1999]

favour of plaintiffs and ultimately compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- has been

awarded to plaintiffs.

7. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 30-3-1999 the suit was decreed for

payment of compensation Rs.2,88,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @

12% p.a.

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

been filed. Vide order dated 23-4-2002, this court directed appellants to

deposit the decreetal amount as awarded and to release the same to

claimants subject to furnishing solvent security. On 29-1-2003 the stay

application was disposed of and the order dated 23-4-2002 was confirmed

on the statement that award amount was disbursed to claimants.

9. Heard learned counsel for appellants and perused the impugned

judgment as also other material available on record.

10. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the impugned

judgment and decree is liable to be set aside as the trial court has not

considered the fact that the department was not responsible for the accident

as the electrocution was occurred in gumti of deceased. Therefore findings

of the trial court are perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are

liable to be quashed and set aside.

11. Heard. Considered.

12. 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.

(5 of 8) [CFA-258/1999]

(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

appellant AVVNL, according to which the appellant AVVNL is duty bound to

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

13. From the factual matrix of this case negligence on the part of

defendants by non maintaining High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV at

the appropriate height is clear. At the site wires of High Voltage Electricity

Line of 11,000 KV were loose and wire broken due to which heavy

electricity passed in the pump-set of deceased and he was electrocuted.

Once it is established that wire of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV

was broken due to which deceased got electrocuted, the principle of strict

liability and vicarious liability comes in play. The defendants would be

strictly and vicariously liable to compensate persons affected by accidents

(6 of 8) [CFA-258/1999]

without being any fault of their and due to negligence on the part of

department.

14. 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.

15. 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

(7 of 8) [CFA-258/1999]

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."

16. 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."

17. 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

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".

(8 of 8) [CFA-258/1999]

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

trial court with regard to 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 the deceased died due to

electrocution because of negligence on the part of defendants in not