J V V N L, Jaipur And Ors vs Smt Manni Devi And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3231 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 379/2008

1.     Jaipur Vidhyut Vitiran Nigam Limited, R.c. Dubey Marg,
       Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Chairman
2.     Executive Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitiran Nigam Limited,
       Sambhar Lake, Distt. Jaipur
3.     Astt. Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitiran Nigam Limited,
       Sambharlake, Distt. Jaipur
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                   Versus
1.     Smt. Manni Devi W/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Veer Alias
       Mohan Veer, R/o Purana Kila, Near New Bus Stand,
       Sambherlake, Distt. Jaipur
2.     Rohit Veer S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Veer Alias Mohan Veer,
       R/o Purana Kila, Near New Bus Stand, Sambherlake,
       Distt. Jaipur
3.     Rahul Veer S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Veer Alias Mohan
       Veer, R/o Purana Kila, Near New Bus Stand, Sambherlake,
       Distt. Jaipur
4.     Km. Renu D/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Veer Alias Mohan Veer,
       R/o Purana Kila, Near New Bus Stand, Sambherlake,
       Distt. Jaipur
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)         :     Ms. Priya Rastogi, Adv.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Rakesh Bhargav, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 07/08/2023

Instant appeal filed by the non-applicants-appellants (for

short 'the non-applicants') against the judgment dated 17.05.2008

passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur

(for short 'the trial court') in Compensation Suit No.202/2006,

(2 of 3) [CFA-379/2008]

whereby the trial court accepted the claim application/suit for

claim of the respondents-applicants (for short 'the applicants') and

awarded Rs.10,85,848/- in favour of the applicants.

Learned counsel for the non-applicants submits that the trial

court wrongly decreed the applicants' suit against the non-

applicants. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits

that as per the evidence, the electric wires were about 10-12 feet

height on the top of the roof. So, there was no negligent on the

part of the non-applicant. Deceased electrocuted on account of his

negligent, he deliberately touched the electric line. So, judgment

of the trial court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the applicants has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicants

and submitted that as per the evidence, rubber of the electric line

found to be cut, so, accident was happened. Maintaining of the

electric lines was duty of the non-applicants. Non-applicants in

their written statements stated that deceased was died due to

current passed in domestic equipment but in the evidence, they

stated that deceased deliberately touched the electric line.

Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that the trial

court while calculating the compensation wrongly deducted the

house rent. Although, they had not filed the cross-objection or

cross-appeal for it but they can challenge this issue in the appeal

filed by the non-applicant. So, appeal be dismissed and house rent

be added in award.

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon

the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of

(3 of 3) [CFA-379/2008]

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sharmila &

Ors. reported in 2018 ACJ 2720.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the non-applicants as well as learned counsel for the

applicants.

The trial court while deciding the issue No.1 clearly stated

that non-applicants were negligent in maintaining the electric

lines, so, incident was happened. Non-applicants had adduced the

evidence without pleading in their written statements, they stated

that incident was happened due to use of domestic equipment but

in their evidence, they stated that incident was happened due to

touch of electric line by the deceased. So, in my considered

opinion, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that non-

applicants were negligent in maintaining the electric lines. So,

present appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed,

which stands dismissed accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin/281

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)