Smt. Godavaribai Goswami vs Executive Engineer, MPSEB, Pologround Indore and Others

Hon''ble Shri N.K. Mody, J.—Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20/12/08 passed by XIII ADJ, Indore in civil suit No. 51-A/07 whereby the suit filed by the appellant for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of death of Suman Goswami was allowed and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-was awarded, present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for compensation alleging that on 08/06/04 when appellant alongwith Suman were coming to their house, at that time Suman came in contact with live wires of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, with the result Suman sustained burn injuries and died on spot. It was alleged that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of respondents. It was alleged that the live electrical lines were not properly maintained by the respondents. It was alleged that since the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of respondents, therefore, compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- be awarded.

The suit was contested by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 by filing written statement, wherein plaint allegations were denied. It was alleged that since there was no negligence on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, therefore, respondents can not be held liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed the suit holding that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of respondents and awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, against which present appeal has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly held that respondents are liable for payment of compensation, but committed error in awarding only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is submitted that the deceased Suman was aged 7 years. It is submitted that in a case of child death amount awarded by the learned Court below is grossly inadequate. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced.

Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that since the accident occurred because of fault on the part of deceased Suman herself, therefore, learned Court below committed error in holding that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of respondents. It is submitted that ample evidence is on record, which goes to show that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of deceased herself. It is submitted that from the evidence on record it is also proved that there was no negligence on the part of respondents in maintaining the live wires of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be allowed to sustained. In alternate Learned Counsel submits that the amount awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and the same be dismissed.

To prove the case appellant has examined herself as PW/ 1 and submitted the documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/10.

In the matter of Ramesh Singh Pawar Vs. M.P. Electricity Board and Others, wherein live electric wire illegally taken for supply of electricity, touched upon by a boy aged six years resulting into his death and no material placed on record by Electricity Board to suggest that they had taken all steps, safety measures or care reasonably expected by them to prevent mishap, this Court held that Electricity Board is liable to pay compensation to petitioner not only on ground of negligence but on principle of strict liability. In the matter of Gindiya Bai Wd/o Hamru Gond Vs. Chairman M.P. Electricity Board, 1994 MPLJ 240 wherein in a case where electric line and transformer not properly maintained and the death occurred because of electrocution, this Court held that the Electricity Board and its employees failed to discharge their burden that the transformer and electric line were being looked after properly and that all necessary precautions were observed by them. It was also held that in such a case negligence will be presumed. The principle of res ipsa loquitur will follow, and a prima facie interference can be drawn, that there has been carelessness on their part in properly maintaining the transformer. It was also held that such inference is also supported by Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and the burden is on the defendants to show that all necessary precautions were taken and observed by them. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, 9 wherein the tanker in question was carrying petrol which is a highly combustible and violatile material and after the collision with the other motor vehicle the tanker had fallen on one of its sides on sloping ground resulting in escape of highly inflammable petrol and that there was grave risk of explosion and fire from the petrol coming out of the tanker. In this circumstances it could be said that the collision between the taker and the other vehicle which had occurred earlier and the escape of petrol from the taker which ultimately resulted in the explosion and fire were not unconnected but related events and merely because there was interval of about four to four and half hours between the said collision and the explosion and fire in the tanker, it cannot be necessarily inferred that there was no causal relation between explosion and fire. Therefore, the explosion and fire resulting in the injuries which led to the death of deceased was due to an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle viz. the petrol tanker. In the matter of Manoharlal Gupta and Others Vs. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, wherein Divisional Bench of this Court has held that the Electricity Board is liable for negligence. It is negligence to omit to use all reasonable known means to keep the electricity harmless. The burden of proving that there was no negligence is on the Electricity Board and there is no obligation on the plaintiff to prove negligence, the principle of res ipso loquitor also applies.

After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in holding the respondents liable for payment of compensation.

So far as amount of compensation is concerned, since accident is of the year 2004, therefore, this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the learned Court below is on lower side. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the compensation by Rs. 1,00,000/-. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed. Appellant shall be entitled for a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the respondents with the learned Court below and the learned Court below is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant, which shall be opened by the appellant from where appellant can withdraw the amount as per her needs. However, on an application by the appellant this condition could be modified by the learned Court below in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.