Full Judgment
F.A. No.158/2004 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava F.A. No.158/2004 APPELLANTS 1 M.P.E.B. Through Superintending Defendants Engineer (T&D) M.P.E.B. Makronia, Sagar 2. M.P.E.B. Through Executive Engineer, Makronia, Sagar 3. State of M.P. through Collector, Sagar. -Versus- RESPONDENTS:
1. Smt. Sheel Rani w/o Late Shiv Darshan Plaintiffs Patel, Housewife 2. Roop Singh @ Roop Chand, s/o Late Shri Shiv Darshan Patel, Occupation- Labourer, 3. Ku. Vineeta d/o Late Shiv Darshan Patel 4. Ku. Puna d/o Late Shiv Darshan Patel Respondents 3 and 4 minot All the respondents are residents of village Sihora, Tahsil & District Sagar. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT
{19-03-2013} Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2003 passed by learned District Judge, Sagar in Civil Suit No.2-B/2003 whereby the suit of plaintiffs for F.A. No.158/2004 -2- compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,400/- and interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the suit has been decreed, this first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by the defendants.
2. 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 para 1 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 mother and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are brothers and sister of the deceased Babloo aged-24 years (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”.) who died on account of electrocution on 15.5.2000. Hence, a suit for realization of compensation has been filed by the plaintiffs.
3. Learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of plaintiffs. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the defendants.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Having heard them I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. The factum of death of the deceased on account of electrocution is not in dispute, rather it has been F.A. No.158/2004 -3- emphatically proved. The issue No.1 was framed by learned Trial Court as to whether on account of negligent act of the defendants-appellants the deceased had died on account of electrocution.
6. The first plaintiff Sheel Rani was examined as PW-2. According to her, on the relevant date the deceased was going to discharge night soil in the field along with one Raju. One Roopsingh of the village came to her and gave information that deceased had become unconscious on account of electrocution. Thereafter, Raju carried the deceased in unconscious condition and he was shifted to the hospital at Sagar. In the evening she was informed that the deceased had died. The plaintiff has also examined Raju (PW-1) who is an eyewitness. He has deposed that he along with the deceased went to discharge the night soil in the field and when both of them were coming back, near by the electric pole the deceased came in contact with the stay wire in which the current was flowing as a result of which firstly he became unconscious and ultimately he died in the hospital at Sagar. The evidence of eyewitness Raju is also corroborated by evidence of Roopsingh (PW-3). On behalf of the defendants, Junior Engineer Narendra Kumar Tiwari has been examined as DW-1 and lineman Jairam has been examined as DW-2. However, the learned Trial Court after F.A. No.158/2004 -4- examining the evidence of plaintiff vis-a-vis to the evidence of defendants' witnesses came to the conclusion that the deceased had died on account of current in the stay wire has been emphatically proved. 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 current was flowing from the stay wire.
7. According to me, the defendants were duty bound to check from time to time whether any current is flowing in the stay wire that any person or even a cattle may not face any hazardous situation. There is no material on record so as to prove that the stay wire was thoroughly checked to ensure that no current was flowing from it. 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 & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 26th Edition 2010. I have gone through the reasonings F.A. No.158/2004 -5- assigned by learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiffs to the extent of Rs.1,20,400/- along with interest. The reasons so assigned are cogent and I do not find any ground to deviate from those reasonings.
8. Resultantly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.5000/- if pre-certified. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE 19 03.2013 sach