Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited and The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec). Supply Corporation Ltd. vs Sudha, Harshitha and Veeresha

S. Abdul Nazeer, J

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 14/2009 dated 15.10.2011 on the file of the District Judge at Chamarajanagara whereby the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 5/2008 dated 2.4.2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Chamarajanagar has been confirmed. The appellants are the defendants in the suit and the respondents are the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the trial Court.

The plaintiffs filed the above suit claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with costs and interest on account of the death of Mallanna, the husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that Mallanna had died on 1.11.2006 at about 6.00 a.m. due to electrocution. It is contended that Mallanna had gone to his land to bring Mulberry leaves. While he was going to his land through the land belonging to one Ratnamma, he came in contact with live electric wire, which was lying on the ground.

It is further contended that Mallanna was aged 35 years at the time of his death. He, was hale and healthy. He was getting an annual income of Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- from Sericulture. He was getting total income of Rs. 65,000/- per year. The plaintiffs were dependent on him for their livelihood.

The second defendant has filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the relevant issues. The first plaintiff was examined as P.W1 and documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P2 I have been marked in her evidence. The defendants have not let in any evidence. On appreciation of the materials on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit granting compensation of Rs. 4,26,000/- with 6% interest from the date of the suit till the date of its realisation from defendant Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. As noticed above, the first appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants is that the suit itself is not maintainable having regard to Sections 161 and 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (''Electricity Act'' for short) and also having regard to Section 145 of the Electricity Act. It is further argued that the plaintiffs have not made out a case for grant of compensation. They have not established that defendants were negligent. Even otherwise, the compensation awarded is excessive.

I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decrees.

The contention of the plaintiffs is that Mallanna had died due to electrocution. P.W1 in her evidence has stated that her husband''s annual income was more than Rs. 5 lakh per annum. She has produced the FIR, which reveals that on 1.11.2006 at about 6.00 a.m., the deceased Mallanna had been to his land to bring Mulberry leaves. At about 10.45 a.m., the elder brother of deceased Mallanna came and told that Mallanna died due to electrocution in the land of Ratnamma. He came in contact with the live electricity wire lying on the land. The spot panchanama denotes the spot of the death of Mallanna due to electrocution. The postmortem report denotes that Mallanna had died due to electrocution. Similarly the death certificate also denotes the death of Mallanna due to electrocution. The defendants have not let in any evidence in support of their contention. The trial Court on appreciation of the materials on record has come to a conclusion that the death is due to the negligence of the defendants. The plaintiffs have also let in cogent evidence to show that Mallanna was an agriculturist. The trial Court has taken his income as Rs. 100/- per day and after deducting 1/3rd of the said amount towards his personal expenses, his net annual income is taken at Rs. 24,000/-. Thus, the trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 20,000/- each towards loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and loss of future expectancy of life. Thus, the court below in all awarded a sum of Rs. 4,26,000/-. I do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the courts below.

Section 161 of the Electricity Act states that if any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may by general or special order direct.

Similarly, Section 162 provides for appointment of Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspector to exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed within such areas or in respect of such class of works and electrical installations and subject to such restrictions as the Appropriate Government may Direct.

Section 145 states that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any manner which an assessing officer referred to in Section 126, or an appellate authority referred to in Section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under the Act is empowered by or under the Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act.

The defendants have not taken up this defence before the trial Court. They have not even let in any evidence before the trial Court. These provisions do not contain a bar for entertaining a suit claiming compensation. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal as above, I.A. No. I/2012 does not survive for consideration It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.