M.P.S.E. Board vs Naiba Bai and Others

A.K. Shrivastava, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2004 passed by learned District Judge, Raisen in Civil Suit No. 2-B/2004 whereby the suit of plaintiffs for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,98,000 and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit has been decreed, this first appeal u/s 96, CPC has been filed by the defendants. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal as they are mentioned in detail in paras 2 to 6 of the impugned judgment and, therefore, for the convenience they are not being reproduced here. Suffice it to say that the first plaintiff is the widow and plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased Jairam aged 26 years (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") who died on account of electrocution on 10.9.2000. Hence, a suit for realization of compensation has been filed by the plaintiffs.

Learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of plaintiff. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the defendants.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Having heard them, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The factum of death of the deceased on account of electrocution is not in dispute, rather it has been emphatically proved. The issue No. 1 was framed by learned Trial Court in respect to the negligent act of the defendant-appellants as a result of which the deceased died on account of electrocution.

The first plaintiff Navia Bai who is the widow of the deceased has been examined as PW-1. She has categorically stated that the deceased was her husband and other plaintiffs are her minor children born out of the wedlock of the deceased. She has further deposed that her husband (deceased) had gone to the field along with other plaintiffs Radha Bai and Manmohan and these two children came back to home and narrated the incident and told that the deceased is crying in high tone. Further this witness has deposed that when she arrived at the spot along with the neighbours she found that the deceased was lying dead and two wires were lying nearby the dead body. Eye-witness Radha Bai was examined as PW-2. On the date of deposition her age was in between 12-13 years and on the date of filing of the suit her age was 11 years. This witness has categorically deposed that she along with her younger brother Manmohan had gone along with the deceased. Further she has deposed that she was playing with her brother nearby the mound (Medh). At that juncture they heard the shriek other father and when she came nearby him by gesture the deceased directed not to come nearby him. This witness has categorically deposed that on account of electrocution her father had died. The evidence of eye-witnesses has been corroborated by evidence of Dr. Pramod Bhargava (PW-3) and also the post-mortem report (Ex. P-4) in which he has opined that the deceased had died on account of electrocution. On behalf of the defendants, Lineman Chhatar Singh (DW-4), Line Inspector Gopal Prasad Mokhale (DW-5) and Assistant Engineer Vimal Kumar Kulshreshta (DW-6) have been examined but the factum of death of the deceased on account of electrocution has not been denied by them. Indeed, this fact is also not disputed in the written statement. Hence, I am of the view that learned Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that the deceased had died on account of electrocution and the broken electric wire was lying in the field.

According to me, it was the statutory duty of the defendants to stretch the wife particularly when high voltage current is flowing from it in such a manner that it should not fall or break so as to put any person or even a cattle in hazardous situation. There is no material on record so as to prove that the wire was thoroughly checked so that it may not fall. No report in this regard has been filed and proved by the defendants. Since the defendants were negligent in this regard, therefore, according to me, they are responsible to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs because they are the dependents of the deceased. Indeed, negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In this regard, I may rely upon page 474 of Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 26th Edition 2010. I have gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiffs to the extent of Rs. 1,98,000 along with interest. The reasons so assigned are cogent and I do not find any ground to deviate from those reasonings. Resultantly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 5,000, if pre-certified.