M.P.E.B. and Others vs Deena Ahirwar and Two Ors.

N.K. Mody,J.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge,Sagar in Civil Suit no. 3-B/ 2000,the present appeal has been filed.

Short facts of the case are that respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for releasing Rs. 5,55,000/- on the ground that their son Ravi Ahirwar came in contact with the live electric wire which was lying in the field on 1-3-2000 and died. The case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 was that when Ravi had gone to village Mehesaghat for grazing goats,at that time because of electric current he died on spot. Further case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 is that accident occurred because of negligence on the part of appellant/ Board in not conducting periodical inspection and maintaining electrical lines properly. It was alleged that because of negligence and inaction of the Electricity Board the accident arose and,therefore,the compensation was claimed.

Appellant submitted the written statement,wherein it was alleged that accident occurred because of the theft of electricity illegally by one Sitaram Patel S/o Jaganath Patel for operating his pump set,for which the appellant is not liable. It was alleged that there was no lapse,carelessness or negligence on the part of appellant. It was further alleged that Sitaram Patel who was residing in village Mohara has unauthorisedly taken electricity for motor pump set from electric pole situated at 1700 feet away from his field. It is on the ground of this unauthorised connection Ravi Ahirwar son of respondent nos. 1 and 2 died. It was further alleged that the sons of Sitaram Patel has not been impleaded as party therefore,the suit was dismissed on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary parties. On the basis of the pleadings of the party the learned court below framed by following issues :-

i) Has Ravi son of respondent nos. 1 and 2 died on 1-3-2000 due to negligent maintenance of electrical line ?

ii) Are the plaintiff''s entitled to Rs. 5.4 lacks as loss of dependency,Rs. 5,000/- for funeral and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental and physical sufferings with interest @ 12% p.a.

iii) Relief and cost.

That after recording the evidence of the parties the learned trial court on 24-8-01 found that the accident took place because of fault on the part of appellant in maintaining the electrical lines and awarded decree of Rs. 83,000/- in favor of respondent nos. 1 and 2 along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 26-4-2000. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned court below the appellant has filed the appeal where in the validity of the judgment and decree has been challenged.

Mr. A.K. Pathak,learned counsel for the appellant submits that Sitaram Patel who laid down the unauthorised electrical wires was the necessary party for the just disposal of the suit and on this account neither issue was framed nor the findings were recorded and the suit deserves to be dismissed on that account only. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that from the evidence on record it is amply proved that there was no fault on the part of the appellant in maintenance of live wires. Accident occurred only because of illegal and unauthorized theft by Sitaram Patel whose fields were more than 1700 feets away from where the accident took place.

From perusal of the record,it is evident that appellant has examined only one Junior Engineer,Narendra Kr. Tiwari as DW-1. From the statements it is evident that the Sub office of the Board is situated four kilometers away from the place of occurrence. He has also stated in Para-5 of the statement that he got the information about the death of Ravi after a month of the accident. He has stated that he has prepared the ''Naksha Moka'' (site plan) which has not been filed by the appellant,for the reasons best known to it. The case of the appellant is that the accident occurred because of theft of electricity unauthorisedly by Sitaram Patel,but,for just disposal of this case how he is necessary party has not been explained. The case of the appellant is that to avoid accidents precautions are being taken by the electricity board and there were diamond guarding rings over the electrical wires so that if any wire falls on them,by touching the guard the flow of electricity will come to an end. The inquiry conducted by the electricity board has not been placed on record. It is also not evident from the record that after the accident any senior officer has visited the site or not ? Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and Others, ,wherein the hon''ble Supreme Court has taken a view 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 the injury suffered by any other person,irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. 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. After taking into consideration the decision in 2004 (1) MPJR 554 Ramesh Singh Pawar Vs. M.P.E.B. & Ors.,wherein the circumstances similar to this case,a line was illegally pulled in residence for running the Tube-well,the line was broken and electricity flew from this wire resulting in the death of the boy,this court has taken a view that appellant/ board is liable for damages of Rs. 2 lakh as it has not discharged its periodical inspection and it is liable due to negligence and under strict liability.

In view of this there is no illegality committed by the court below in passing the judgment and decree of Rs. 83,000/- in favor of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. This appeal stands dismissed with costs.