(The vs The Tripura State Electricity ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1871 Tri

Tripura High Court

(The vs The Tripura State Electricity ... on 25 March, 2026

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA

                            RFA No.11 of 2025

Master Sushan Chanda,
S/o Sri Sanjoy Chanda, Resident of Madhya Nayapara, Dharmanagar,
North Tripura, Pin-799250.

(The plaintiff being minor, is represented by his father
Sri Sanjoy Chanda,
S/o Late Sasadhan Chanda, Resident of Madhya Nayapara, Dharmanagar,
District - North Tripura, Pin-799250.)

                                                           ......Appellant(s);
                                  VERSUS
1.    The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd,
Notice to be served upon the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bidyut
Bhavan, North Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001.
2.    The D.G.M,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, Pin-
799250.
3.    The Senior Manager,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, Pin-
799250.
                                                        ......Respondent(s);

For Appellant(s)                     : Ms. Sudipta Chowdhury, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)                    : Mr. Kushal Deb, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment and Order                   : 25.03.2026.
Whether fit for reporting            : YES.

             HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
                     JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

[Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J]

Heard Ms. Sudipta Chowdhury, learned counsel for the

appellant-plaintiff and Mr. Kushal Deb, learned counsel for the respondents-

defendants.

[2] This present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

against the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.08.2024 passed by

the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, Dharmanagar, North

Tripura, in connection with Money Suit No.01 of 2021 wherein the learned

Court below granted compensation of Rs.30,017/- against the

compensation sought for by the appellant to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-.

[3] The brief fact of the prosecution case as projected in the

judgment of the learned Trial Court is that the appellant-plaintiff is a boy of

12 years of age (on the date of filing of the suit in the Trial Court) who is a

citizen of India reading class-VI at DNV School, Dharmanagar. He, being a

minor, is represented by his father in the suit. On 03.10.2018 at about 0930

hours, the appellant-plaintiff was returning to his house from a shop and

when he reached near Nayapara Juri Bridge (College Road), suddenly he

came in contact with Electrical HT Kiosk Box of UG cable situated just

beside the road-side which had been kept in open condition by the

respondents-defendants in the most negligent manner. Prior to the

aforesaid incident, local people of Nayapara, College Road had informed

the respondents-defendants about the open Transformer Box and another

accident had taken place in relation to the said box earlier, but the

respondents-defendants did not take any precaution. After getting contact

with the said open Transformer Box, the appellant-plaintiff received severe

injury in his hand and other parts of his body. Local people shifted him to

Dharmanagar District Hospital where Dr. N. H. Bhowmik treated him and

opined in his report that the injury was severe caused by electric burn

approximately 30 percent. He referred the appellant-plaintiff for better

treatment and the appellant-plaintiff was accordingly taken to the Silchar

Medical College and Hospital, Assam by his parents. There, he was treated

as an indoor and an outdoor patient for more than six months and at the

time of filing of the suit, he was under medical treatment. Due to the

aforesaid injury, he was unable to move his hand frequently. The appellant-

plaintiff's father filed a complaint against the respondents-defendants at

Dharmanagar PS which was registered as 2018DMN158 dated 07.10.2018

under sections 285/338 of IPC. After investigation of the said case, the IO

clearly stated in his report that after the aforesaid incident when he visited

the place of occurrence, he found that the HT Kiosk Box of UG cable had

been dangerously and most negligently kept open by the road-side without

any precaution. The said fact had also been confirmed by the letter given

by Er. Sanjib Dasgupta to the IO of the aforesaid case wherein he

specifically stated that when he visited the place of occurrence with his

Manager, he found the said HT Kiosk Box of UG cable in open condition.

The IO of case no. 2018DMN158 mentioned the said fact in his Final

Report. The appellant-plaintiff of the suit thus, received severe injuries due

to negligence of the respondents-defendants and as such, the respondents-

defendants are jointly liable under the law of Torts to pay compensation to

him. The plaintiff was a student of class-IV at DNV School, Dharmanagar at

the time of the alleged incident. Due to the alleged incident, he has been

unable to move his hand properly and also been unable to remember many

things. It was the duty of the respondents-defendants to regularly observe

the Transformer Box and they failed to perform such duty. For the purpose

of treatment of the appellant-plaintiff, his father had to take loan. At the time

of filing of the suit also, the appellant-plaintiff was under treatment and his

career prospects got hampered. On 24.06.2020 the appellant-plaintiff sent

advocate's notices upon the respondents-defendants under section 80 of

CPC claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs, but the respondents-

defendants did neither pay compensation to him nor reply to his notices.

Therefore, being compelled, the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit. With this,

the plaintiff prayed for a decree of compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs with

interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the awarded amount from the date

of the incident till the date of payment. He also prayed for the costs of the

suit and any other relief(s) as the Court may deem fit.

[4] On institution of the suit, summonses were issued to all the

defendants. The defendant no. 1 did not file written statement, but

participated in trial. On the other hand, the defendant nos. 2 and 3

appeared through learned engaged counsel and filed joint written

statement. They also participated in trial. In their written statement, the

defendant nos. 2 and 3 stated that the instant suit is not maintainable under

the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. They also stated that the instant suit suffers

from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties and there is no valid

cause of action for filing the same. The defendant nos. 2 and 3 denied the

fact of taking place of the alleged incident on 03.10.2018 and claimed that it

was falsely alleged by the appellant-plaintiff to damage their reputation.

They claimed that the appellant-plaintiff fabricated a story to extract

compensation from them unlawfully. The Kiosk Box in question was

situated much away from the road track and as such the appellant-plaintiff

could not clarify as to how he had come in its contact. The Kiosk Boxes are

kept locked with electrical shock. Electrical shock may take place only when

one intentionally puts his hand inside the same for any mischievous

purpose or for foolish curiosity ignoring the danger sign. Thus, in the

alleged incident, there was no negligence on the part of the respondents-

defendants and if the appellant-plaintiff at all received some injury, it was

because of his mischief, negligence or delinquency. The Final Report filed

by the IO in the case filed by the appellant-plaintiff was inconsistent though

it clearly put forward the findings that the alleged incident was accidental in

nature and no negligence was established against the Electric Department.

The respondents-defendants always remain careful in performing their

duties. The appellant-plaintiff falsely alleged that previous complaint by the

local people had not been attended by them. In fact, there was no call in the

records for the date 03.10.2018 with regard to the Kiosk Box in question.

Thus, there was no negligence on the part of the respondents-defendants

with regard to the injury caused to the plaintiff. Want of report of the

Electrical Inspector (statutory authority for electrical safety inspection) made

the claim of the plaintiff inadmissible. With this, the defendant nos. 2 and 3

prayed for dismissal of the instant suit.

[5] Thereafter, hearing both the sides and also considering the

matters in the record, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

             i.     Whether the suit is maintainable in its present
             form and nature?

             ii.     Whether there is a valid cause of action for
             filing the suit?

             iii.   Whether there was negligence on the part of

the defendants in fixing and maintaining the HT Kiosk box of UG cable at the relevant place?

             iv.    Whether there was contributory negligence of
             the part of the plaintiff?

             v.     Whether the injuries, including psychiatric

injuries, allegedly caused to the plaintiff were the proximate and direct effects of the alleged negligence by the defendants?

vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? If yes, what should be the quantum of the same?

             vii.    Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other
             relief(s)?

[6]           After examining all the witnesses and exhibited documents as

well as hearing both the parties, the learned Court below vide its judgment

and decree dated 23.08.2024 dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff

and granted compensation of Rs.30,017/- against the compensation sought

for by the appellant-plaintiff to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-.

[7] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and decree dated 23.08.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in Money

Suit No.01 of 2021 the appellant-plaintiff filed this instant appeal seeking

the following relief(s):

"(a) Admit the appeal;

(b) Call for the records from the Ld. Courts below;

(c) Issue notice upon the respondents; and

(d) After hearing the parties would further be pleased enough to set aside the judgment dated 23.08.2024 and decree dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Court No.2, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Money Suit No.01/2021;

AND

(e) Pass order for allowing the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 23rd Day of August, 2024 and decree dated 23rd Day of August 2024 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Court No.2, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Money Suit No.01/2021 till disposal of the appeal ............."

[8] Learned counsel, Ms. Sudipta Chowdhury, submits that

learned Trial Court has committed error in law and facts in passing the

respective judgment and decree, and therefore, interference of this Court is

required for the ends of justice. It is contended by the learned counsel, Ms.

Chowdhury, that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the continuing nature

of the cause of action, as the appellant's injuries required ongoing medical

treatment. The learned Trial Court did not adequately evaluate the clear

evidence of negligence on the part of the respondents-defendants

regarding the unsafe condition of the electrical kiosk. The testimonies of

eye witnesses along with the investigating officer's report, unequivocally

established that the kiosk box was negligently left open. Furthermore, the

learned Trial Court overlooked substantial evidence establishing the

respondents' negligence, indicating systemic negligence in maintenance

and supervision. The hazardous condition of the HT Kiosk Box, which was

under the exclusive control and maintenance of the respondents, inherently

establishes prima facie negligence. The burden of proof, therefore, rested

on the respondents to disprove their liability, which they failed to do. It is

also submitted that the appellant-plaintiff provided medical records and

eyewitnesses testimonies confirming that the injuries were caused by

electrocution from the open HT Kisok box. The evidence clearly established

a direct link between the respondents' negligence and appellant's injuries.

Therefore, there was negligence on the part of the respondents-defendants

in fixing and maintaining the HT Kiosk Box of UG cable at the relevant

place. Learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court failed to

consider critical evidence, including certified copies of the final police report

and testimonies from independent witnesses. This evidence corroborated

the appellant-plaintiff's claim that the HT Kiosk Box was negligently left

open, directly resulting in the accident and injuries.

[9] Learned counsel, Ms. Sudipta Chowdhury, further submits that

the awarded amount is insufficient given the circumstances of the case and

the evidence presented. Furthermore, it is argued that the learned Trail

Court failed to adequately consider the key factors for determining the

compensation that would justify a higher compensation. In light of these

arguments, the appellant seeks a reevaluation of the evidence,

emphasising the need for a more comprehensive assessment of the

damages incurred. The learned counsel believes that a fair review could

lead to an adjustment in the awarded amount to better reflect the true

extent of appellant-plaintiff's losses.

[10] On the contrary, learned counsel, Mr. K. Deb, opposes the

submissions made on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff and submits that the

observations and decisions made by the learned Trial Court is based upon

the evidences on record and the same is just and proper which needs no

further interference by this Court. Learned counsel, Mr. Deb, also submits

that the Kiosk Boxes are kept locked with the live parts fitted deep inside for

safety. Even if the door of the Kiosk Box remains open and any person

accidentally falls upon it, he might get some cut or bruise, but not electrical

shock. Electrical shock may take place only when one intentionally puts

his/her hand inside the same for any mischievous purpose or for foolish

curiosity ignoring the danger sign. Therefore, in the alleged incident, there

was no negligence on the part of the respondents-defendants and if the

appellant-plaintiff at all received some injury, it was because of his mischief,

negligence or delinquency.

[11] Learned counsel, Mr. K. Deb, for the appellant respectfully

submits, with due reference to the case records, that the instant suit is not

maintainable under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, as the alleged victim has

not expired as a consequence of the incident in question. The provisions of

the said Act apply specifically to claims arising from death caused by

wrongful acts, and in the absence of such fatality, the suit cannot be

sustained under this statute. Furthermore, it is contended that the suit is

barred by the law of limitation. Although a cause of action may arguably

exist, it is asserted that the period prescribed for initiating legal proceedings

has elapsed, thereby rendering the suit time-barred and liable to be

dismissed on that ground alone.

[12] Learned counsel, Mr. K. Deb, also submits that the appellant

has failed to establish the quantum of damages suffered. There is a

conspicuous absence of any medical evidence or documentation to

corroborate the alleged injuries or losses claimed. No medical expert

witness has been examined to testify on the nature and extent of the

injuries, nor have any medical reports or bills been produced as evidence.

In this regard, the appellant's reliance solely on the final report filed by the

investigating officer is insufficient to discharge the evidentiary burden

necessary to substantiate claims for consequential damages. The

investigating officer's report primarily pertains to the facts of the incident

and does not serve as a substitute for medical or other expert evidence

required to prove the extent of damages. Accordingly, the claim for

damages lacks the requisite evidentiary foundation and must be held to be

unsubstantiated. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial

Court, after due consideration of the evidence on record, has already

granted compensation in the amount of Rs. 30,017/-, which adequately

addresses the claim before it. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned

counsel for the respondents-defendants respectfully submits that the instant

appeal be dismissed, and that the impugned judgment and decree of the

Trial Court be affirmed in all respects.

[13] This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced

by the learned counsel for both parties and has also carefully gone through

the materials available on record.

[14] This Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has

rightly dealt with the issues in paragraph nos. 8.15, 8.16 and 9.2 of the

impugned judgment which are extracted hereunder for reference:

"8.15. At this juncture, section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 categorically states that judgments, orders, or decrees, other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order, or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provisions of the Act. Thus, findings of a criminal Court is not always binding on a civil Court dealing with facts arising out of same transaction. Much weaker is the status of a Final Report filed by the Investigating Officer of a criminal case. Therefore, basing on Ext. 1 (as a whole) which is the certified copy of Final Report filed by the Investigating Officer in case no. 2018DMN158, the plaintiff side is unable to prove that the injuries, including psychiatric injuries, allegedly caused to the plaintiff were the proximate and direct effects of the alleged negligence by the defendants.

8.16. Secondly, admittedly the plaintiff side could not examine any medical expert in this case, and consequently, could not bring into evidence any medical document showing that the plaintiff had sustained any kind of medical injury including psychiatric injury in the alleged incident and that those were the proximate and direct effects of the alleged negligence by the defendants.

9.2 The above discussion clearly puts forward that the instant suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff side could not prove that the injuries, including psychiatric injuries, allegedly caused to the plaintiff were the proximate and direct effects of the alleged negligence by the defendants. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for or to any other relief(s) in the instant case. Rather, as per section 35 of CPC he is to bear the costs of this suit."

[15] Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the findings

arrived at by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), North Tripura,

Dharmanagar while granting compensation of Rs.30,017/-. This Court,

upon careful consideration of the submissions and the record, is of the firm

view that there is no prima facie or compelling reason to interfere with the

impugned judgment and decree dated 23.08.2024 passed by the learned

Trial Court. The findings and conclusions rendered by the Trial Court are

well-reasoned, legally sound, and supported by the evidence on record. In

light of the foregoing, the instant appeal is accordingly dismissed, and the

judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court dated 23.08.2024 stands

affirmed in its entirety

[16] As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall

also stand closed.

[17]           Send down the LCRs forthwith.



S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J.                                               DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.




Munna MUNNA SAHA   Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
                   Date: 2026.03.30 15:06:21 +05'30'