AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Veerappa, J.—This is a defendants'' regular first appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2012 made in O.S. No. 53/2010 on the file of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs declaring that they are entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,36,360/- along with 6% interest from the date of suit till realization and plaintiffs are entitled to share the compensation amount equally i.e., 1/9th share.
The respondent Nos. 1 to 9 who are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court filed suit claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- with 18% interest from the date of accident till the realization towards electrocution death of one Shri Subhas Daddimani. It is the case of the plaintiffs that 1st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8 are the daughters of the deceased and plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff Nos. 3 to 8 are minors and they are under care and custody of plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 is natural mother of defendant Nos. 3 to 8. Except plaintiffs, there are no other legal heirs of the deceased. The family of the plaintiff owned and possessed the landed property measuring 1 acre 35 gutnas situated in R.S. No. 83/2 of Kamaldmni Village, Gokak Taluk and the said land is situated abutting to the road leading to Patagundi Village. The defendants have laid electric line over the said land. The said electric line consists of 4 lines and they are high-tension live wires. On the date of accident, one such live wire was hanging on the road i.e., the said land of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 Vilas Shivaling Daddimani and other adjoining land owners had intimated the defendants'' - Authorities about the same and asked them to repair the hanging live wire. However, the defendants have not repaired the same. On 27.03.2010 at about 02:00 p.m. the deceased along with plaintiff No. 1 and his brother Vilas Shivalmg Daddimani had gone to the said land. The deceased was irrigating to the sugarcane crops standing on the said land and the plaintiff No. 1 and said Vilas were removing the unnecessary growths from the said land. The plaintiff No. 1 and the said Vilas had heard hue and cry of the deceased. Immediately they rushed towards the deceased. The time was 05:30 p.m. At that time and place, the hanging live wire came in contact with the deceased and he died on the spot. The said wire was cut from the line and it was lying on the ground. Vilas informed the defendants to switch off the electric supply to that line immediately. The deceased died due to the negligence of the defendants to maintain electric line properly in order to avoid any danger to human life. The defendants are not known to take stock of the situation regularly on day today basis. The defendants and its Officers were prosecuted in respect of the said incident and the defendants and its Officers have been found guilty of the said offences in connection with the said incident by the learned Criminal Court. After the incident, the plaintiffs approached the defendants and requested for compensation towards death of the deceased. The defendants'' assured that they would pay the compensation after scrutinizing papers. The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of incident. The deceased was earning more than Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre in that year. Deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of his death. Due to sudden untimely death of the deceased, the entire family was put to untold loss, hardship, inconvenience and misery. The plaintiff No. 1 had lost her loving and care taking husband. Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8 had lost their loving and affectionate father etc. Therefore, plaintiffs filed the suit.
Initially, the plaintiffs had claimed compensation to a tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- and thereafter got their plaint amended to claim compensation to a tune of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Defendants filed written statement denying the entire plaint averments and contended that suit filed by the plaintiff is false and frivolous and not maintainable and also contended the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Electrical Inspector has reported to the Government stating that the incident took place due to the negligence act of the deceased himself etc. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the suit.
On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that on 27.03.2010 in between 2.00 p.m. and 05:00 p.m. in the lands of the plaintiffs, the deceased Subhash Daddimani came in contact with the high tension wire which was lying on the ground and died due to electrocution?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove their alleged relationship with the deceased Subhash Daddimani?
3) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the plaintiffs are entitled?
4) What decree or order?"
In order to establish their case, the plaintiff No. 1 examined himself as P.W.1 and witness as P.W.2 and marked documents Exs. P-1 to P-16. On behalf of defendants, Assistant Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Ghataprabha examined as D.W.1 and Deputy Electrical Inspector, Belgaum examined as D.W.2 and marked the document Ex. D-1. After considering the entire material on record, the Trial Court has held that the plaintiffs have proved that on 27.03.2010 in between 02:00 p.m. to 05:00 p.m. in the lands of the plaintiffs, the deceased Subhash Daddimani came in contact with the wire which was lying on the road and died due to electrocution and also held that plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of the deceased, that the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8 are the daughters of the deceased and that the plaintiff No. 9 is the natural mother of the deceased and plaintiffs are entitled the compensation of Rs. 10,36,360/- in all with 6% interest. Against the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
Shri M.B. Kanavi, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order passed by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is without any basis. The Trial Court failed to notice that the electric line drawn illegally by the plaintiffs without the permission of the HESCOM and it is due to the negligence on the part of the deceased the accident was occurred. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below.
Per contra, Shri Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.
The substance of the entire case of the plaintiffs is that due to the negligence on the part of the defendants the live wire was cut from the land and it was lying on the road and it is negligence on the part of the defendants inspite of the information given by the plaintiffs they have not repaired. The deceased died due to negligence of the officers and it is the duty of the defendants to maintain electric line properly in order to avoid danger to life. The defendants filed written statement denying the entire plaint averments and specifically contended that Electric Inspector, who is the servant of the State Government has reported that the incident took place due to the negligent act of the deceased himself Therefore, he is not entitled to pay any compensation.
Admittedly, in the present case, the defendants have not lodged any complaint to the jurisdictional Police about the illegal connection taken by the deceased or the other persons in the village. In the absence of any complaint lodged and in the absence of any material document, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants Shri M.B. Kanavi cannot be accepted in the present case.
The Trial Court considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that plaintiffs have established that the deceased was died due to electrocution on 23.07.2010 due to the negligence on the part of the defendants and deceased came into contact with the high tension wire which was lying on the road and died. D.W.1 Assistant Executive Engineer has stated on oath as under:
D.W.2 Deputy Electrical Inspector who has stated on oath in the cross-examination as under:
D.Ws.1 and 2 clearly admitted in their deposition/cross-examination that deceased died due to electrocution from the wire hanging down from the line drawn by the HESCOM.
The Trial Court while deciding the suit has relied upon the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and Others, at para 11 held as under:
"11. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1981)(1) SCC 395) This Court has gone even beyond the rule of strict liability by Holding that "where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on any one on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensation those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher."
(emphasis supplied)
While determining the compensation, the Trial Court relied upon the law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and also in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, and held that relying upon the said principles enunciated in the said dictums of the Apex Court, the Trial Court held that the deceased was an agriculturist owning 4 acres of lands and taken the income of Rs. 6,000/-, as held by this court in the case of Basanagouda v. Anand B. Bandiwaddar and another reported in 2012 Kant MAC 257 and held that income of Rs. 6,000/- to be taken in the case on hand and affixed the 30% to Rs. 6,000/- would be Rs. 1,800/- and accordingly, it is calculated. The deceased has left behind him one widow (the plaintiff No. 1), seven daughters (The plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8) and one mother (plaintiff No. 9). Taking into consideration the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, deduction for personal and living expenses at 1/10th. In the case on hand, 1/10th of Rs. 6,000/- + Rs. 1,800/- comes to Rs. 780/-. The age of the deceased was 40 years and applied the multiplier 14. Hence, the loss of future dependency of the plaintiff works out to as follows: (Rs. 7,800 - 780) Rs. 6,020 X 12 X 14 = Rs. 10,11,360/-
Further the Trial Court awarded the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation of body and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium. In total, the compensation that the plaintiffs are entitled to was Rs. 10,36,360/- with interest at 6% from the date of suit till realization. Accordingly, the suit came to be decreed.
On re-appreciating the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs. P-1 to P-16 and evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex. D-1, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is just and proper. No interference is called for. Accordingly, the regular first appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.