Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs Sohani (2023:Rj-Jd:28057) on 4 September, 2023

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2023:RJ-JD:28057]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 478/2022

1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., through Managing Director, Old Power House, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, through Superintending Engineer, Nagaur, Rajasthan.

3. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, through Assistant Engineer, Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

----Appellants Versus

1. Sohani W/o Bhuwana Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Saranon Ki Dhani, Udaipura Police Station, Kuchaman City, Tehsil Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagaur.

2. Bhuwana Ram S/o Deva Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Saranon Ki Dhani, Udaipura Police Station, Kuchaman City, Tehsil Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagaur.

                                                                         ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Himanshu Purohit
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Gaju Singh Rathore



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                        Order

04/09/2023

1. The present appeal has been preferred by Ajmer Vidhyut

Vitran Nigam Ltd. against the judgment and decree dated

24.08.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kuchaman

City (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Fatal Accident

(CIVIL) Case No.133/2021 whereby suit of the claimants-

respondents for compensation under the Indian Fatal Accident Act,

1855 (for short 'the Act') has been partly decreed and an amount

of Rs.4,70,000/- along with interest @ 5.50% per annum has

been awarded as compensation.

[2023:RJ-JD:28057] (2 of 8) [CFA-478/2022]

2. A suit was preferred by the claimants-respondents with the

following submissions:

(i) On 11.08.2013, when their son Rahul was returning back to

home, he came in contact with the stay wires of DP through which

current was passing and got electrocuted and ultimately,

succumbed to the injuries.

(ii) The information of the incident was given to the defendant

department on the same day but no inquiry qua the said incident

was undertaken by the department. FIR qua the said incident was

also got registered and after investigation, it was concluded that

Rahul died due to electrocution. The Post Mortem Report also

suggested death of the deceased because of shock by

electrocution.

(iii) The stay wire was not having insulator upon it and was

causing high voltage electricity current. Because of the negligence

of the department in maintaining the electric

appliances/instruments, the son of the claimants got electrocuted

and as a result expired. Therefore, the defendant department is

liable to compensate the claimants.

3. The case of the appellants-defendants was as under:

(i) There was no negligence on part of the defendants and the

death did not occur due to any such alleged negligence.

(ii) The appellant department did not receive any information of

the said incident through the claimants or their family members.

In fact the appellants got to know about the incident on

12.08.2013 through the newspaper and soon after the same, a

Junior Engineer was deputed to investigate the matter who

submitted his report on 23.08.2013 concluding that there was no

[2023:RJ-JD:28057] (3 of 8) [CFA-478/2022]

negligence on part of the department. Police officials also did not

investigate anything from the officers of the department.

(iii) The fact is that the deceased was cutting tree near 11000 KV

line and having contacted the electric current passing through the

said 11000 KV Line, got electrocuted. There is no possibility of

current passing through stay wire connected with the 11000 KV

line, as if such thing had happened, there would have been an

earth fault in the line and the fuse located at the transformer

would have burnt thereby stopping the flow of electricity. Further,

the stay wire was installed about 4 feet below the electricity line

and therefore, the averment of current passing through stay wire

is on the face of it, incorrect.

4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed

five issues as under:

Þ¼1½ vk;k jkgqy fnukad 11-08-2013 dks lkj.kksa dh <k.kh esa cdfj;ka pjkdj ?kj vk jgk Fkk rks jkLrs esa fctyh ds iksy esa rk.k esa djUV vkus ls jkgqy dh e`R;q gks xÃ\ .....çkFkÊx.k

¼2½ vk;k jkgqy dh e`R;q bl ;kfpdk ds pj.k Øekad 3] 4] 5 esa vfHkdfFkr fd;s x;s rF;ksa ds vkèkkj ij çfroknhx.k dh ykijokgh ls gqÃ gS\ .....çkFkÊx.k

¼3½ vk;k çkFkÊx.k bl ;kfpdk esa vfHkdfFkr dh xÃ dqy jkf'k 28]75]000@& v{kjs NCchl yk[k fipsÙkj gtkj :i;s foi{khx.k ls {kfriwÆr ds :i esa çkIr djus ds vfèkdkjh gS\ .....çkFkÊx.k

¼4½ vk;k çkFkÊx.k e`rd jkgqy ij vkfJr ugÈ Fks] bl dkj.k ls çkFkÊx.k ds }kjk çLrqr dh xÃ ;g ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; ugÈ gSA .....foi{khx.k

¼5½ vuqrks"k\ß

5. Claimants examined Sohani Devi (PW-1), Kesharam (PW-2)

and got exhibited eight documents whereas the appellants

[2023:RJ-JD:28057] (4 of 8) [CFA-478/2022]

defendants examined Ramakant Sharma (DW-1), Mahendra Singh

(DW-2), Ramchandra (DW-3) and got exhibited two documents.

6. The learned Court below proceeded on to decide issue Nos.1

and 2 jointly and while relying upon the site map (Ex.4) and the

post mortem report (Ex.5) concluded that the averments of the

defendant that the deceased got electrocuted while cutting the

tree cannot be relied upon as no tree was reflected/spotted in the

site map (Ex.4). Further, the post mortem report also suggested

death of the deceased due to electric shock. The Court therefore

concluded that it was only because of the negligence of the

defendant department in maintaining the electric wires that the

son of the claimants expired.

While deciding issue No.3, the Court below relying upon the

Apex Court judgment in the case of Kurvan Ansari and Ors. vs.

Shyam Kishore Murmu and & Ors., 2022 1 SCC 317 assessed

the income of the deceased @ 25,000/- per year and proceeded to

award compensation for an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- with interest

@ 5.50% per annum.

7. Aggrieved against the decree/award dated 24.08.2022, the

present appeal has been preferred on the following two grounds:

(i) The Court below erred in ignoring the inquiry report as

prepared by the Junior Engineer of the Department which

was a part of the record and hence, the findings on issue

Nos.1 and 2 were contrary to the material available on

record.

(ii) No complaint was ever received by the Department of any

current passing through the stay/supporting wire. The Court

wrongly concluded that there was current flowing in the stay

[2023:RJ-JD:28057] (5 of 8) [CFA-478/2022]

wire whereas no such fact has been proved on record by the

claimants.

No other ground has been raised before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Junior

Engineer Mahendra Singh (DW-2) had very much deposed about

the inquiry report concluding that there was no negligence on part

of the Department but the same was not even considered by the

Court below. Further, had there been any current flowing in the

wires, the same would have been reported to the Department but

no such complaint was ever made and hence it could not have

been concluded that the deceased got electrocuted because of any

current flowing in the stay wire.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported

the judgment as passed by the Court below and submitted that

the findings as arrived by the Court are totally in consonance with

the evidence available on record.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

11. So far as the first ground as raised by learned counsel for the

appellants regarding the non-consideration of the inquiry report

prepared by the Junior Engineer is concerned, the inquiry report

mentioned as under:

"ekSds dh tkap o iM++kSlh;ksa ls ?kVuk dh tkudkjh vuqlkj ml fnu cjlkr gqbZ Fkh rFkk cjlkr :dus ds ckn jkgqy] fdlh dkj.ko'k isM+ ij p<+k rFkk mlds ikl ls xqtj jgh 11 KV ykbZu ftfy;k ds Li'kZ esa vk;k ftlls mls fo|qr vk?kkr yxk ftlds ckn mipkj ds nkSjku mldh e`R;q gks xbZA"

[2023:RJ-JD:28057] (6 of 8) [CFA-478/2022]

12. Totally contrary to the facts stated in the said report,

Mahendra Singh (DW-2), in his cross-examination, deposed as

under:

";g ckr lgh gSa fd 'kiFk&i= cjlkr dk dksbZ vadu ugha gSA ;g ckr lgh gSa fd ?kVukLFky ij rk.k yxh gqbZ FkhA ;g ckr lgh gSa fd ekSdk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ,- 01 esa lh- ls Mh- LFkku ij LVs ok;j esa bUlqysVj dk vadu ugha gSA ;g ckr lgh gSa fd i=koyh ij ?kVukLFky ds QksVksxzkQ~l is'k ugha fd;s gSA "

13. A bare perusal of the above statements of DW-2 makes it

clear that there are stark contradictions in his statements and in

the report as alleged to be prepared by him. The sole basis of the

inquiry report was that on the date of incident it had rained and

the deceased, after the rain, climbed the tree and came in contact

with the 11KV line and got electrocuted. The said fact of it having

rained on the date of incident was nowhere a part of the affidavit/

statements made by any of the defendant witnesses rather it was

an admitted case of both DW-1 Ramakant Sharma as well as DW-

2 Mahendra Singh that the factum of the rain was not mentioned

in their affidavits. Moreover, DW-3 Ramchandra specifically

admitted as under:

"izn'kZ A-1 ij C ls D LFkku ij LVs ok;j ds bUlqysVj ds ok;j dk vadu ugha gSA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- izn'kZ & 4 & esa isM+ dk vadu ugha gS] vkSj u gh bUlqysVj dk vadu gSA"

14. So far as the second ground of no complaint having ever

been received by the Department regarding flow of current in the

stay/electric wires is concerned, the factum of any insulator not

having been installed on stay wire has not been disputed rather

has been admitted by the defendant witnesses. It is clear on

record that the site report as prepared by the Police Investigating

[2023:RJ-JD:28057] (7 of 8) [CFA-478/2022]

Authority specifically mentioned that there was no insulator

installed on the stay wire and the said Police report was never

challenged by the defendant Department. So far as the plaintiffs

are concerned, the burden to prove issue No.2 was very well

discharged by the eye witness Kesharam (PW-2) who deposed as

under:

"eSa 'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwW fd e`rd jkgqy ds [ksr esa yxh fMih ds fctyh dk [kEHkk yxk gqvk Fkk o [kEHks ds yksgs ds rkj dh rk.k ¼LVsok;j½ [khaph gqbZ FkhA fctyh ds [kEHks dh rk.k esa bUlqysVj ugha yxk gqvk FkkA [kEHks ds Åij ,axy ij rk.k ca/kh gqbZ FkhA ,axy ds mij gh fctyh dh ykbZu yxkbZ xbZ Fkh ftlls fudys rkj ,axy dks Nw jgs Fks ftlds dkj.k rk.k esa djaV izokfgr gks x;k vkSj rk.k ds Vp gksus ls jkgqy dh e`R;w gks xbZA ;g ?kVuk eSaus o vU; yksxksa us ns[khA"

15. In contravention to the said evidence Ramchandra (DW-3),

the lineman of the defendant Department admitted in his cross-

examination as under:

"esjs }kjk ykbZu dh ns[k&js[k ;k ykbZu ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ Hkh nLrkost U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha fd;s gSA"

He further stated that,

"iqfyl dh dk;Zokgh ;k urhtk ds fo:) gekjs foHkkx us vkxs dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh gSA tks dk;Zokgh lgh gSA"

and further that,

"izn'kZ A-1 ij C ls D LFkku ij LVs ok;j ds bUlqysVj ds ok;j dk vadu ugha gSA

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- izn'kZ & 4 & esa isM+ dk vadu ugha gS] vkSj u gh balqysVj dk vadu gSA"

16. In view of the above admissions as made by the defendant

witnesses, this Court is of the clear opinion that the findings as

reached by the Court below are totally in consonance with the

evidence/material available on record. The findings on issue Nos.1

[2023:RJ-JD:28057] (8 of 8) [CFA-478/2022]

and 2 as reached by the Court below does not deserve any

interference by this Court and the same are hereby affirmed.

17. So far as the quantum of compensation as decided under

issue No.3 and the factum of the claimants being dependents of

the deceased under issue No.4 are concerned, no challenge to the

findings on the said issues have been laid in the present appeal.

This Court is therefore, not required to adjudicate the findings of