Tripura High Court

The Tripura State Electricity ... vs Smti. Kamalapati Kaloi And Ors on 11 July, 2024

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                     Page 1 of 7




                          HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA
                           MFA(FA) NO.2 OF 2023

  The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited and ors.

                                                            ......Appellant(s)

                                    Versus

  Smti. Kamalapati Kaloi and ors.
                                                         .......Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Majumder, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. D. Kalai, Advocate.

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 11.07.2024.

Whether fit for reporting : YES.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)

The present appeal is directed against the

Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.2022 passed by learned Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura in

Money Suit No.22 of 2018 whereby the learned Court below has

allowed compensation of Rs.23,07,000/- on account of the death of

the son of the claimants due to electrocution along with interest @

9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its

realization failing which the awarded sum would carry 12% interest

per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

2. Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant-Corporation and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Sr.

counsel assisted by Mr. D. Kalai, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

3. Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel submits that the

accident occurred on 22.03.2018 when one Rashtra Kaloi was

spreading water on the vegetable garden through an electric water

motor, and due to electrocution with the wire of the said water

motor, he got electrocuted and died. So, there was no fault or

actionable wrong on the part of the defendant-appellants as the

deceased was electrocuted with the internal electrical line of the

residence. The learned Court below did not take into consideration

the police report wherein, it is stated that the deceased was

watering his garden through a motor from the internal electric line.

The electric line passed through the roadside, so there is no

possibility of any fallen electrical wire in the vegetable garden as

alleged. The learned Court below did not consider the written

statement of the defendants mainly on the points that there was no

actionable wrong on the part of the respondents and the electric

corporation was not negligent in maintaining the electric line. The

electric line is properly maintained and supervised at regular

intervals. Learned counsel further submits that there is no authentic

income certificate from any authority to establish the fact of the

income of the deceased. The victim is a person belonging to a non-

income group, but, the learned Court below on presumption allowed

the income of Rs.15,000/- per month and interest of 9% per annum

which is not justifiable. He further contented that Court below has

not considered their objections and prayed to allow the appeal and

dismiss the claim.

4. On the other hand, Mr. T.D. Majumder learned Sr.

counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that P.W.-1, the

mother of the victim-deceased in her deposition stated that

hilarious sound was produced from the transformer installed just on

the southern side of their vegetable field, and from that

transformer, post electric line was distributed to the pump house for

the distribution of groundwater to agricultural land. Complaint was

also registered for the said disturbance. Thereafter, the victim while

entering into the vegetable garden to give water to the vegetables

touched and got electrocuted with a snapped live electric wire that

had fallen down from the overhead electric line. The said deposition

of P.W.-1, the mother of the victim was corroborated by the P.W.-2,

Sri Hemanta Kaloi. Stating thus, learned Sr. counsel states the

evidence of witnesses established that electrical line passes through

the back side of the land of the victim deceased. Learned Sr.

counsel submits that due to the fault of the appellant-Corporation

for non-maintenance of the electrical line, the fatal accident had

occurred, and they are liable to pay compensation for the same.

Learned Sr. counsel further stated that appellant-Corporation did

not come to the Court below, they had not adduced any evidence

and participated in the proceeding, now coming before this Court,

they cannot state a different version of the story.

5. On the query of this Court on the non-participation

of the appellant-Corporation, before the Court below, in counter,

Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

Corporation submits that his client had filed a written statement

before the Court below in this regard. But did not enter into the

witness box to adduce any evidence.

6. Heard and perused the evidence on record.

7. It is seen from the record that the appellant-

Corporation or any of the concerned officer(s) have not produced

evidence or given witness before the Court below to support their

argument. This Court feels that the same is laches on the part of

the concerned officers of the appellant-Corporation.

8. However, in the absence of any proof of income of

the deceased, since the fatal accident took place on 22nd March

2018 i.e. after 31/12/2015, the monthly income of Rs.15,000/- per

month as assessed by the Court below is reduced to Rs.12,000/-

per month in term of this High Court notification dated 4 th August

2023. Further, in terms of the norms followed by this Court, 9%

interest per annum levied on the compensation amount by the

Court below from the date of institution of the suit till payment is

also reduced to 7.5% interest per annum. The remaining amount as

assessed by the Court below shall remain unaltered. Both sides

agreed to the said compensation.

9. With the above modification, the compensation

amount now stands at:-

                             Head                            Amount
      a)   Annual income(Monthly Income
           Rs.12,000/- X 12)= Rs.1,44,000/-
      b)   Future Prospects [40% of the
           income      to      be    added]    =
           Rs.57,600/-
      c)   Deduction       towards     personnel
           expenditure ½ of Rs.2,01,600/-=
           1,00,800/-
      d)   Total income -Rs.1,00,800/-
      e)   Multiplies -17
      f)   Loss of dependency[d x e]                Rs.17,13,600/-
      g)   Loss    of     filial  affection   for   Rs.44,000    X      2     =
           claimants                                Rs.88,000/-
      h)   Loss of love and affection for           Rs.44,000/-
           sibling(younger sister)
      i)   Loss of estate                           Rs.16,500/-
      j)   Funeral expenses                         Rs.16,500/-
           Total    Compensation         awarded    Rs. 18,78,600/- along
           [f+g+h+i+j]                              with interest @ 7.5 % per
                                                    annum from the date of
                                                    institution of the suit till
                                                    payment.

Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Court

below of Rs.23,07,000/- is reduced to Rs.18,78,600/-

10. Now coming to the issue of fastening of liability of

the said compensation amount, this Court is of the strong view that

the Corporation cannot be fastened with liability since the officer-in-

charge i.e., 1) The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The Tripura

State Electric Corporation Ltd., Bidyut Bhaban, near Bodhjung

Chowmuhani Agartala, 2) The Deputy General Manager The Tripura

State Electric Corporation Ltd., Amarpur Division, Amarpur, District-

Gomati and 3) The Senior Manager, Ompi Electric Sub-Division P.S.-

Ompi, District-Gomati, and all those concerned officers in respect of

the above cause of action i.e., the officers who are performing the