Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited And Ors vs Asharam @ Ala And Ors

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 05.3.2019 whereby compensation has been awarded to the claimants on account of death of Harish, 25 years boy, who was electrocuted while plowing his fields on account of loose overhead wire going through his field.

The case of claimants was that the father of deceased has submitted a report to Officers of JVVNL with regard to the loose wire hanging in his field but the said wire was not properly repaired and resultantly while plowing the field his son Harish was electrocuted and expired.

The case of appellant-JVVNL before the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Abu Road, Sirohi was that the entire complaint was fradulent and false and that there was no overhead wire running over the field of deceased nor there was any pole fixed in the said field.

The learned court below has framed two issues and issue no.1 with regard to overhead wire running through the field was examined at length and evidence in this regard has come on record of father of the deceased; the Station House Officer, P.S., Abu Road, who submitted a report under Section 174 Cr. P.C., marked as Exhibit-5. The report submitted by father of deceased as well as site-plan were exhibited as Exhibit 6 & 7.

Statement of Ashok Kumar Meena, Assistant Engineer of JVVNL, was recorded who admitted that the Department grants compensation only in case where it is found in internal enquiry that there is fault of Department and also admitted that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was given as compensation after conclusion of internal inquiry into the death of deceased Harish @ Hari Ram.

I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant, who submits that the negligence cannot be attributed to JVVNL as the deceased and his father were having knowledge of loose wire hanging in field and, therefore, they ought to have stayed away from said field till the wire is repaired, therefore, no question of paying compensation under Fatal Accident Act is made out. Learned counsel further submits that already compensation has been awarded to claimants by the Department for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and there was no occasion for further adjudicating the claim.

I have considered the submissions and find that the evidence as noted above clearly shows that inspite of complaint having been submitted by father of deceased to the JVVNL Authorities, no steps were taken to repair the loose wire hanging over the field of deceased, who expired on account of electrocution. The submission of learned counsel that there is negligence on the part of deceased and his father, is noted to be rejected. It is noticed that concerned deceased and his father were ploughing the field and the incident of electrocution happened. For a farmer it is necessary that he plough his field during season and once they have already put up their complaint before the JVVNL Authorities, it was their duty to have repaire the wire. The liability on account of electrocution due to live wire solely rests on JVVNL. Responsibility has been well highlighted by Hon`ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Sahil Kumari & Ors., reported in 2002(2) SCC 162; relevant portion whereof reads as follows :-

"Liability of Electricity Board - Deceased electrocuted due to live wire lying on road - Board is primarily liable to pay compensation - Benefit of exception of "Act of stranger" - cannot be given to Board in cases of electrocution. The responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Electricity Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the manager of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps."

Hon`ble Apex Court has held the liability to be a strict liability of the Electricity Board. It is noticed that strict liability Rule is based on the fact that the such liability is enforceable under the risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. Act of stranger is one exception to the rule of strict liability but such exception has been held to be not maintainable and available to the Board as it was to be reasonably anticipated by the Authorities, consequences which may occur. Similar view has been taken by this Court as well as Co-ordinate Bench in ACTC 2019 (1) Raj. 93.

In view of the above, no interference is called for. The amount as assessed by the learned court below is found to be in accordance with the law and is in-line with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi. In view thereof the appeal is dismissed.