Full Judgment
F.A. No.31/1999 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava F.A. No.31/1999 APPELLANTS 1 Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board through the Superintending Engineer, Rampur, Jabalpur (M.P.) 2. M.P. Electricity Board through the Executive Engineer (O&M), M.P. Electricity Board, Katni, Tah. Murwara, Distt. Katni (M.P.) 3. M.P. Electricity Board through the Sub- Engineer, M.P.E.B., Rithi, Tah. Murwara, Distt. Katni (M.P.) -Versus- RESPONDENTS:
1. Bhagauna s/o Doji Lodhi, Agriculturist 2. Chiranjiyabai w/o Bhagauna Lodhi, Occupation- Housewife, Both R/o village Raipura, Police Station Raipura, Tahsil Shahnagar, Panna (M.P.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri K.K. Gautam, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ashok Lalwani, Advocate for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT
{19-03-2013} Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1998 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Katni in Civil Suit No.15-B/1995 whereby the F.A. No.31/1999 -2- suit of plaintiffs for compensation to the tune of Rs.89,400/- and interest @12% 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 9 of the impugned judgment and therefore, for the convenience they are not being reproduced here. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs- respondents are the parents of the deceased Veeran (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”.) who died on account of electrocution on 7.12.1994 and at the relevant time he was 20 years of age. 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.31/1999 -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 and one ox had died on account of electrocution. Learned Trial Court while deciding this issue has given categorical finding from para-14 onwards to 20 on the basis of evidence placed on record. The first plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined Lakhanlal Patel (PW-2), Nonelal Lodhi (PW-3), Bakhat Singh (PW-4) and Narayan Singh (PW-5). On behalf of defendants Shambhu Kumar (DW-1) and Sheikh Akeel (DW-2) were examined. On bare perusal of the testimony of Bhagauna (PW-1) who is the father of deceased it is gathered that nearby the road, there was a pit filled with water. When the Ox of the plaintiff drank water he fell in the pit and when deceased went to see his Ox, he also came in contact with the broken electric wire as a result of which Ox as well as the son of the plaintiffs have died. This witness has also proved the report which was lodged by him. The police arrived in the village and a panchnama was prepared in which it was pointed out that the ox as well as the deceased had died on account of electrocution. The broken electric wire of the defendants-appellants was lying in the pit, has been admitted by the defendants' own witnesses Sheikh Akil (DW-2) who is Junior Engineer in the establishment of the defendants. The incident occurred in village Raipura, Tahsil Shahnagar, F.A. No.31/1999 -4- District Panna. This witness is although posted in the Sub- office of defendants at Rithi but despite he received information on the date of incident 7.12.1994 at 9 p.m., he did not go to the spot immediately. According to the evidence of Junior Engineer he cannot say how the incident occurred although he has admitted in cross-examination that broken electric wire was lying in the pit where the incident had occurred. The factum of death on account of electrocution has also been proved by eyewitnesses Lakhanlal Patel (PW-2) and Nonelal Lodhi (PW-3) who have categorically deposed that the Ox in order to satisfy his thrust tried to drink the water which was stored in the pit, but, he fell down and when the deceased in order to see the Ox went there he also came in contact with the broken electric wire and both of them had died on account of electrocution. Narwar Shambhu Kumar (DW-1) who is serving on the post of Assistant Engineer in Surajpur has also deposed that at the relevant point of time he was serving as Assistant Engineer in Rithi and Electric Supply Centre of village Rithi comes under his territorial jurisdiction. In cross-examination this witness admitted that he did not go to the spot to see how the incident had occurred. Further he has admitted that timely he is not being informed by the staff of the defendants in regard to any mechanical fault etc. Further he has admitted that the staff did not give him day to day report. In para-9 of the cross- F.A. No.31/1999 -5- examination also this witness has admitted that lineman informed him about the incident and further told that on account of electrocution the Ox and the deceased had died. 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 electric wire was lying broken in the pit.
6. According to me, it was the statutory duty of the defendants to stretch the wire 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 parents 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 F.A. No.31/1999 -6- gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiffs to the extent of Rs.89,400/- along with interest. The reasons so assigned are cogent and I do not find any ground to deviate from those reasonings.
7. 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