Kalu Ram And Others vs J V V N L And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3319 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 25/2011

1. Kalu Ram S/o Shri Meva Ram
2. Pooja D/o Kaluram Minor
3. Kumari Sunita D/o Kaluram Minor
Through natural guardian father Kaluram, All residence of Mukam
Manak Hera, Post and Tehsil Benaya, Distt. Ajmer, at present
Jaipur
                                                          ---Plaintiffs-Appellant
                                    Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Managing Director,
Jyoti Bhawan, Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur
2. Chief Engineer (City) Jaipur, JVVNL, Near Ram Mandir, Bani
Park, Jaipur
3. XEN, Zone Fourth, Jhotwara Area, JVVNL, Vidhyadhar Nagar,
Jaipur
                                               ----Respondents/Defendants

For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. K. K. Pandit, Adv.
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. on behalf of
                               Mr. Alok Garg, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

DATE OF JUDGMENT 08/08/2023

Instant appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs (for

short 'the plaintiffs') against the judgment and decree dated

04.12.2010 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City,

Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Case No.25/2007,

by which the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial court

wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel

for the plaintiffs also submits that as per evidence of the plaintiffs,

(2 of 3) [CFA-25/2011]

deceased Shravani Devi died due to electrocution. Postmortem

report (Ex.4) proved that deceased Shravani Devi died due to

electric current. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits

that plaintiff-Kaluram (PW-1) in his statement clearly stated that

he and his wife Shravani Devi were doing Beldari work at the

house of Prem Singh. Suddenly due to air blow, clothes of

Shravani Devi touched the high tension electricity line passing

ahead the aforesaid house. So, she died. Learned counsel for the

plaintiffs also submits that the respondents-defendants (for short

'the defendants') had not submitted any evidence that they were

not negligent in maintaining the electric lines. Learned counsel for

the plaintiffs also submits that the trial court had committed error

in deciding issue No.4 against the plaintiffs with regard to not

impleading Prem Singh as a party. Learned counsel for the

plaintiffs also submits that Prem Singh was not responsible for the

incident. So, finding of the trial court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon

the following judgments : (1) H.S.E.B. & Ors. Vs. Ram Nath &

Ors. reported in 2005 ACJ 342; (2) Asa Ram & Anr. Vs.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. reported in 1996 ACJ

20; (3) Mothukuri Bheemavva & Ors. Vs. A.P.S.E.B. & Anr.

reported in 1 (1998) ACC 107; (4) Madhya Pradesh

Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari & Ors. reported in 2002

ACJ 526 and (5) Nirmala Thirunavukkarasu & Ors. Vs. Tamil

Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. reported in 1984 ACJ 210.

Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and

submitted that the trial court had not committed any error in

(3 of 3) [CFA-25/2011]

dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the

defendants also submitted that during cross-examination, plaintiff-

Kalu Ram stated that affidavit in evidence was not got written by

him and he had not read it. He had also denied the contents from

A to B in paragraph 20 of the plaint. So, the trial court rightly

dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the

defendants.

The trial court in its judgment clearly stated that the

plaintiff-Kalu Ram (PW-1) had denied the contents from A to B in

paragraph 20 of the plaint. He also denied the affidavit in evidence

filed by him and also stated that he had not got written the

affidavit filed by him and he had not read it. So, in my considered

opinion, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiffs

failed to prove their case. So, present appeal being devoid of

merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed

accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin/182

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)