Smt Bidami Devi vs Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 929 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/000547]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                     S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 253/1998

Smt Bidami Devi W/o Late Shri Bhura Das, Aged About 48 years,
R/o Dhani Pipliyawali, Tan Nare, Post Hardas Ka Bas, Tehsil
Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)
                                                             ----Appellant/Plaintiff
                                       Versus
1. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Ajmer through its Chairman
and Managing Director.
2. Superintending Engineer Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd,
Sikar (Raj.)
3.   Assistant       Engineer,     Ajmer       Vidyut       Vitaran    Nigam   Ltd.,
Ajeetgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
4. Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Reegus,
District Sikar (Raj.)
                                                   ----Respondents/Defendants

5. Smt. Vinodi Devi W/o Late Shri Sanwar Mal, D/o Shri Ram Swami,

6. Surendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Sanwar Mal, Minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Vinodi Devi, both residing at Dhani Kerwali, Tan Mandoli, Tehsil Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Proforma Respondents/Plaintiffs

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. P. Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 24.01.2023

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 27.01.2023

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed

for the reasons stated therein and the delay of 182 days in filing

the appeal is condoned.

[2023/RJJP/000547] (2 of 4) [CFA-253/1998]

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short

'the plaintiff') against the judgment & order dated 18.09.1997

passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Neem-ka-

thana (for short 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No.53/95, in which

the trial court has awarded a sum of Rs.1,57,000/- to the

respondent Nos.5 and 6 only and dismissed the claim of the

plaintiff.

Brief facts of the appeal are that plaintiff along with

respondent Nos.5 & 6 had preferred a regular civil suit under the

provisions of Fatal Accident Act in the Court of Additional District

Judge, Neemkathana in which it was clearly mentioned that on

28.03.1995, Sanwar Mal alongwith his father Bhura Das and

brother Prahlad was coming from the agricultural field to their

home in a camel cart. At about 07:00 PM when they reached near

well of Bodya, electric wire was laying down in the sand. From the

said wire, electric current was flowing. Bhura Das and Sanwar Mal

Mal came in contact with the said wire, due to which, Sanwar Mal

and his father Bhura Das burnt severally and died. A camel was

also died from the said wire.

Respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 (for short 'the

defendants') filed a written statement and denied the negligency

on the part of the electricity department and prayed to dismiss the

suit. The trial Court vide judgment dated 18.09.1997 allowed the

suit and awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to respondent

No.6-Surendra Kumar and Rs.57,000/- as compensation to

respondent No.5 Smt. Vinodi Devi and denied to grant any

compensation to the plaintiff.

[2023/RJJP/000547] (3 of 4) [CFA-253/1998]

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the deceased

Sanwar Mal was son of plaintiff. The trial Court has wrongly

disallowed the claim of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the

plaintiff further submits that as per Hindu Succession Act, wife of

the deceased and mother are equal claimants. Learned counsel for

the plaintiff also submits that the trial Court has not awarded any

amount towards future prospects and consortium to the plaintiff.

So, order of the learned trial Court be reviewed/modified and

compensation be granted to the plaintiff.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the

following judgments:-(1) Girdhar Meena & Ors. Vs. Jaipur

Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Chairman, Vidhyut

Bhawan reported in 2023(1) R.A.R.59 (Raj.); (2) State Of

Rajasthan through Chairman JVVNL, Jaipur District, Jaipur

Vs. Guddi Bai reported in 2023 (1) R.A. R.69 (Raj.); (3)

Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company

Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2023 (1) R.A.R.20 (SC)

Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and

submitted that the trial court in its order clearly mentioned that

plaintiff is not dependent upon the deceased. The trial Court in its

order also clearly stated that the plaintiff had filed other civil suit

No.54/1995 on account of death of her husband in which

compensation has been awarded to her. So, appeal be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the

defendants.

[2023/RJJP/000547] (4 of 4) [CFA-253/1998]

The trial Court while deciding the claim petition specifically

observed that the plaintiff is not dependent upon deceased-

Sanwar Mal and plaintiff had also filed a claim petition No.54/95

on account of death of her husband in which the trial Court had

awarded Rs.65,000/- as compensation to the plaintiff and in claim

petition No.53/1995 the trial Court clearly mentioned that the

plaintiff had agricultural land and thus she was not dependent

upon the deceased-Sanwar Mal. So, the trial court only granted

compensation to his wife (respondent No.5) and son (respondent

No.6). So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has not

committed any error in not granting the compensation to the

plaintiff. So, present appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be

dismissed which stands dismissed accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/81

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)