Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs Harjudi (2025:Rj-Jd:50155) on 20 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:50155]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 377/2024
1. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Chief Executive
Engineer, Vidhyut Bhawan, Panchsil, Makarwali Road,
Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer.
2. Assistant Engineer (Rural), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Ltd., Bagot, Tehsil Parbatsar, Distt. Deedwana-
Kuchaman.
3. Superintendent Engineer, Nagaur (O And M), Ajmer
Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Nagaur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Harjudi W/o Baldevram, Lora Ki Dhani, Rughnathpura,
Tehsil Parbatsar, Distt. Deedwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
2. Kamla W/o Hathiram, Lora Ki Dhani, Rughnathpura, Tehsil
Parbatsar, Distt. Deedwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
3. Hathiram S/o Bhanwarlal, Lora Ki Dhani, Rughnathpura,
Tehsil Parbatsar, Distt. Deedwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
4. Sarita D/o Baldevram, Lora Ki Dhani, Rughnathpura,
Tehsil Parbatsar, Distt. Deedwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
5. Kishore Lora S/o Baldevram, Through Natural Guardian
Mother Harjudi, Lora Ki Dhani, Rughnathpura, Tehsil
Parbatsar, Distt. Deedwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohammad Akbar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
20/11/2025
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Ajmer Vidhyut
Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) against the judgment and decree
dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge
No.1, Parbatsar, District Deedwana- Kuchaman in Civil Case
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:17:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50155] (2 of 4) [CFA-377/2024]
No.28/2021 "Harjudi & Ors. vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd."
whereby the suit filed by the claimants-respondents under the
Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was decreed and compensation to
the tune of Rs.10,28,230/-, 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 30.08.2021, at about 02:00 P.M., the deceased
Baldevram while shading the leaves of the tree in his field for
grazing his cattles, came into contact with the electricity current
flowing from 11 KV electrictiy line which was touching the tree..
The deceased suffered electrocution, resulting in his untimely
death. According to the claimants, had the electricity lines were
being maintained properly, the deceased would not have died due
to electric shock. The claimants- respondents claimed
Rs.53,00,000/- as compensation from the appellant- AVVNL.
3. The appellants-defendants, in their written statement,
denied any negligence on their part and asserted that the death
did not occurred due to improper maintenance of the electricity
wires. It was further pleaded that as a matter of fact, the
deceased has died while stealing electricity. 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{k ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; }kjk fuEufyf[kr fook|d
dk;e fd, x,%&
1- vk;k fnukad 30&08&2021 dks nksigj djhc 2 cts e`rd cynsojke [ksr
esa fLFkr isM+ dh Mkyh dks tkuojksa dks pjkus ds fy, dkV jgk Fkk ml le; isM+
ds mij ls 11 gtkj dsoh dh fo|qr ykbZu ds rkj isM+ dh Mkfy;ksa ls Nw jgs Fks
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:17:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50155] (3 of 4) [CFA-377/2024]
rFkk fo|qr rkjksa esa djaV izokfgr gks jgk Fkk rFkk isM+ dh Mkyh dkVus ds nkSjku
cynsojke dh e`R;q izfroknhx.k }kjk viuh fo|qr ykbZu o fo|qr rkjksa dh lgh
ns[kjs[k ugha djus ds dkj.k izfroknhx.k dh xyrh] ykijokgh o vlko/kkuh ds
dkj.k mDr ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZ Fkh\------ oknhx.k
2- vk;k izfroknhx.k }kjk izLrqr izkjafHkd vkifRr;ksa vkSj fo'ks"k fooj.k esa
vafdr vkifRr;ksa dk D;k izHkko gS\------ izfroknhx.k
3- vk;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls fo|qr djaV ls fnukad 30&08&2021 dks
e`rd cynsojke dh e`R;q gksus dh otg ls 53]00]000@& #i;s dh {kfriwfrZ jkf'k
e; 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\------ oknhx.k
4- vuqrks"k\"
5. Before the learned trial Court, the claimants- respondents
examined Harjudi (PW-01), Gopal (PW-02) and exhibited 16
documents whereas the appellant/defendant-AVVNL examined
Omnath (DW-01) and Krishnapal Singh (DW-02). No documents
were produced in evidence on behalf of the appellant/ defendant-
AVVNL.
6. The learned trial Court proceeded to decide Issues No.1 and
2 and while relying upon oral and documentary evidences
produced on behalf of the claimants- respondents, concluded that
the deceased came in contact with electric wires while shading the
trees. Upon evaluating both oral and documentary evidence, the
Court held that the death occurred solely due to negligence on the
part of the appellants- AVVNL in maintaining the electric lines/
wires. While deciding Issue No.3, the learned trial Court placing
reliance on the judgments in the cases of "Sarla Verma & Ors. vs.
DTC & Anr." reported in AIR 2009 (SC) 3104 and "National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." reported in
AIR 2017 (SC) 4973 assessed the monthly income of the deceased
at Rs.6,552/-, and awarded compensation of Rs.10,28,230/- with
interest @ 6% per annum.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:17:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50155] (4 of 4) [CFA-377/2024]
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court
finds no perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial
Court. The appellant have 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 died due to electrocution.
The findings recorded by the trial Court on Issues No.1 and 2 are
in consonance with the evidence available on record. 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 17.05.2024 is affirmed. The present
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
9. The stay application as well as all pending applications stand
dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
169-divya/-
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:17:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
