Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs Cheli (2025:Rj-Jd:49958) on 19 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:49958]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 622/2018
1. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, (Legal Person)
Through
1/1. Managing Director/chairman/president, Ajmer
Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidhyut Bhawan Ajmer.
1/2 Supertending Engineer Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Office Nagaur.
1/3 Assistant Engineer Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Khinvsar District Nagaur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Cheli W/o Late Bheraram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Bairathal Khurd Tehsil Khinvsar District Nagaur.
(Deceased Wife)
2. Jhumarram S/o Late Bheraram, Aged About 8 Years, R/o
Bairathal Khurd Tehsil Khinvsar District Nagaur, Minor
Through Natural Guardian Mother Cheli. (Decesed Son)
3. Smt. Champadevi W/o Jetharam, Aged About 60 Years,
R/o Bairathal Khurd Tehsil Khinvsar District Nagaur.
(Deceased Mother)
4. Jetharam S/o Motaram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Bairathal Khurd Tehsil Khinvsar District Nagaur.
(Deceased Father)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaswant Singh
Mr. Manvendra Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
19/11/2025
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Ajmer Vidhyut
Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) against the judgment and decree
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:32:40 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49958] (2 of 4) [CFA-622/2018]
dated 28.08.2018 passed by the learned District Judge No.2,
Nagaur in Claim Case No.229/2015 (86/2011) (251/2014),
whereby the suit filed by the claimants-respondents under the
Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was decreed and compensation to
the tune of Rs.8,94,752/-, along with interest @ 6% per annum,
was awarded in their favour.
2. In the suit preferred by the claimants-respondents, it was
pleaded that on 10.07.2011, the deceased, Bhera Ram, came in
contact with the stay wires connecting D.P. near Padamsar
Chauraha, Khinwsar, and suffered electrocution, resulting in his
instantaneous death. According to the claimants, the stay wires of
D.P. were not properly affixed. It was alleged that due to
negligence on the part of the AVVNL in maintaining the electric
lines, the deceased suffered electrocution, making the AVVNL
liable to pay compensation.
3. The appellant-defendant, in its written statement, denied
any negligence on its part and asserted that the death did not
occur due to improper maintenance of the electric wires. It was
further pleaded that the deceased, being a feeble-minded person,
came in contact with the stay wires due to his own negligence.
The defendants claimed that there was no possibility of the wires
being loosely attached, as the electric poles were regularly
maintained by them.
4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed
as many as five issues including the relief, which read as under:-
"4. mHk; i{kksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; }kjk fuEukafdr fook|d fojfpr fd;s
x;s &
¼1½ vk;k fnukad 11-07-11 dks inelj] pkSjkgk [khaolj esa fo|qr foHkkx dh ykijokgh ls
fo|qr rk.k esa djaV gksus ls mlds ikl ls xqtj jgs HkSjkjke ds fo|qr djaV vkus ls mldh
e`R;q gqbZ\ oknhx.k
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:32:40 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49958] (3 of 4) [CFA-622/2018]
¼2½ vk;k izfroknh foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k fctyh ds
rkj VwVus ds dkj.k mDr nq?kZVuk dkfjr gqbZ] ftlls HkSjkjke dh e`R;q gqbZ\ oknhx.k
¼3½ vk;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls 38]20]000 #i, dh jkf'k gtkZuk ds :i esa izkIr djus
ds vf/kdkjh gS\ oknhx.k
¼4½ vk;k e`rd HkSjkjke ekufld :i ls fof{kIr Fkk tks ekufld fof{kIrrk dh gkyr esa
fxjus ds dkj.k mlds vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k HkSjkjke dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ\
¼5½ vuqrks"k\"
5. Before the learned trial Court, the claimants- respondents
examined Chaili (PW-01) and Harsukhram (PW-02), and exhibited
14 documents including the marg report, FIR, and postmortem
report. The appellant/defendant-AVVNL examined Panne Singh
(DW-01) and Ramchandra Saran (DW-02), and produced four
documents in evidence.
6. The learned trial Court proceeded to decide Issues No.1, 2,
and 4 jointly and, while relying upon the documentary evidence
and the testimonies of PW-01 and PW-02, concluded that the
deceased died due to electrocution. Upon evaluating both oral and
documentary evidence, the Court held that the death occurred
solely due to negligence on the part of the AVVNL in maintaining
the electric wires. While deciding Issue No.3, the Court placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma & Ors. vs. DTC, AIR 2009 SC 3104, assessed the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.6,075/-, and awarded compensation
of Rs.8,94,752/- with interest @ 6% per annum.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court
finds no perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial
Court. The appellant has miserably failed to prove that the
deceased came in contact with the electric wires due to his own
negligence. On perusal of the record, including the postmortem
report, it is evident that the deceased came in contact with the
stay wire connecting D.P. as they were not properly affixed to the
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:32:40 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49958] (4 of 4) [CFA-622/2018]
electric poles, resulting in his death due to electrocution. The
findings recorded by the trial Court on Issues No.1, 2, and 4 are in
consonance with the evidence available on record. Issue No.3 has
also been rightly decided keeping in view the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra). Hence, the
findings of the learned trial Court warrant affirmation.
8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. Consequently,
the judgment/decree dated 28.08.2018 is affirmed. The present
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
9. The stay application as well as all pending applications stand
dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
36-divya/-
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:32:40 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
