AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The First Appeal No.430/2007 under sec.96 CPC has been
filed against the judgment & decree dated 22.05.2007 passed by
learned Additional District Judge (FT) No.1, Bhilwara in CO Case
No.42/05 while the First Appeal No.431/2007 has been filed
against the judgment & decree dated 22.05.2007 passed by the
learned ADJ (FT) No.1, Bhilwara in CO Case No.41/05. Both the
cases were filed against present appellants, claiming
compensation against deaths due to electric shock, attributing
negligence against the appellants. In view of this, both the
appeals were tagged together and the same are being decided by
this common judgment.
The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Suit
No.42/2005 was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs claiming
compensation of Rs.11,78,800/- on the ground that deceased
Keelu died due to electric shock caused by broken wires of supply
line. It was alleged that the wires of electricity line broke due to
negligence and carelessness of the appellant-Company. Suit
No.41/2005 was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs therein,
claiming compensation of Rs.11,16,000/- with similar allegations.
The present appellant-defendants denied the facts as alleged
in the plaints and it was stated in the reply that the incident has
not taken place due to negligence of the Company and hence, the
appellant-Company is not liable to pay any kind of compensation.
The trial court, after hearing the parties, framed as many as 4
issues and witnesses were examined from both sides. After
hearing the arguments, the trial court passed the impugned
judgment & decree and awarded compensation of Rs.3,38,300/- in
Suit No.42/05 and compensation of Rs.2,27,500/- in Suit
No.41/05, against the appellant-defendants vide judgments &
decrees dated 22.05.2007.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgments & decrees dated
22.05.2007 in aforesaid suits, the appellants have preferred these
two appeals on the ground that it was clearly mentioned that said
incidents had not occurred due to negligence of the appellant-
Company. The trial court miserably failed to consider the specific
contention raised before it that the deceased had not received
current due to negligence or carelessness on the part of the
appellant-Company. The wire of the supply line were broken
exactly where insulator was situated. The wire was cut by sharp
instrument, which shows that the wire was being tampered/
hampered with intention of theft and in this regard, a report was
sent to the Superintendent of Police for investigation. In such
circumstances, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by
the learned trial court are liable to be quashed and set aside.
It was also alleged that the impugned judgments and
decrees are based on wrong appreciation of evidence. The trial
court has failed to consider all facts in correct perspective. The
learned court below has failed to consider defendants'' positive
evidence that there was no negligence on their part as the line
was being maintained and checked regularly. It was also
contended that the compensation awarded by the trial court is
highly excessive, exorbitant and has been awarded without
considering the facts in totality. It was further submitted that the
learned trial court calculated income of the deceased persons
without any documentary proof and in such circumstances, the
impugned judgments & decrees passed by the trial court are liable
to be quashed.
On the grounds asserted by the appellants, this Court is to
consider mainly two points, first- whether the trial court has
considered the evidence put forth by the defendants and second-
the amount of compensation, whether it was excessive or not.
While deciding deciding issue No.1, the trial court has
considered the evidence and decided question as to whether Keelu
and Raju died on account of electrocution and who is responsible
for this negligence & carelessness. The defendants in their reply
before the trial court had stated:
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
From the evidence, it has come up that the wire was broken
in which electric current was flowing. There was no evidence on
record whereby it can be ascertained that there was regular
checking of the electricity lines by the appellant-Company. On
what dates and at what interval checking of the lines was being
conducted, is not proved. The electricity line wire was found
broken near insulator. This itself proves that it was negligence of
the appellant-defendants in regular checking of the line. There is
no evidence that it was broken by any sharp tool.
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted judgment
of Hon''ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail
Kumari & others : (2002) 2 SCC 162 and contended that even
assuming that all safety measures had been adopted, a person
undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to
human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for injury
suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or
carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertaking.
The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the
very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is
known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which
arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the
concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm
could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the
defendants did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm,
he can not be held liable when the action is based on any
negligence attributed but such consideration is not relevant in
cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable
irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm
by taking precautions.
The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English
common law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of
Rylands v. Fletcher: (1861-73) All ER Rep 1: (1868) 3 HL 330,
with the observation:
"The true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."
This principle is further pronounced by this Court in S.B. Civil
First Appeal No.323/2001 ( Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. &
ors. v. Narayani Devi & ors .) decided on 21.01.2016, wherein it
was held as follows:
"it was the statutory duty of the defendant-appellants to maintain the electric pole and wires properly, but since the insulator was not there, the incident took place resulting in unfortunate death of a poor tiller, who was plowing the field on crop-sharing basis in the night and learned trial court has rightly partly decreed the suit awarding compensation in favour of the plaintiff-respondents".
In Rajasthan State Electricity Board & ors v. Smt Pani
Bai & ors. (2000 DNJ Raj 635) also, this Court observed:
"16. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given by the learned trial Judge, therefore, it must be held that defendant-appellants are liable to pay damages because of death of Rainga Ram, which has been caused on account of their negligence in installation of electric line or in proper maintenance thereof."
In view of this, there is no substance in the argument
advanced by the appellants on this point.
So far as objection regarding amount of compensation is
concerned, the learned trial court while deciding the issue No.2, in
view of the evidence the income of deceased Keelu was taken at
Rs.25,000/- per annum from agriculture work. After reducing one-
fourth for personal expenses, his net income was taken at
Rs.21,600/- per annum and a multiplier of 18 was applied.
The age of the deceased was shown as less than 30 years.
There is no infirmity in applying the multiplier of 18 when the age
is below 30 years as per Second Schedule for compensation for
Third Party Fatal Accident Claims. Therefore, the arguments
advanced by the appellant-defendants in this respect too are not
tenable in the eye of law.
The appeals preferred by the appellants have no merits and
there is no ground for interference by this Court. Both the appeals
(No.430/2007 and 431/2007) are dismissed.