Full Judgment
F.A. No.169/2001 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava F.A. No.169/2001 1. M.P. Electricity Board through Secretary, Shakti Nagar, Rampur, Jabalpur 2. Superintending Engineer M.P. Electricity Borad, Prem Nagar, Thana City Kotwali Satna (M.P.) ...Appellants/Defendants -Versus- 1. Chhotelal Sahu s/o Chhakodi Sahu village : Chorimari, Dist. Satna (M.P.) 2. Smt. Shyamkali w/o Chhotelal Sahu R/o Chorimari, Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, Dist. Satna (M.P.) ... Respondents/plaintiffs 3. Bhaiyalal Mishra @ Bhaiyan @Pujari s/o Shambhu Pd. Mishra, R/o Chorimari Baratola, Thana Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, Dist. Satna (M.P.) ... Defendant No.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri R.S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri K.K. Gautam, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Mayank Singh Thakur, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2. Shri S.D. Khan, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT
{26-03-2013} Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.1.2001 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No.10-B/1997 whereby the suit of plaintiffs for compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/- and F.A. No.169/2001 -2- interest @6% 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 5 of the impugned judgment and therefore, for the convenience they are not being reproduced here. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased Sumendra Kumar alias Lala (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”.) who died at the age of 6 years on account of electrocution on 24.9.1997. It is stated that the deceased had gone for grazing the she-goats and was standing nearby the electric pole which was erected with the support of stay wire. The deceased came in contact with the stay wire in which current was flowing and he died on account of electrocution. 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. F.A. No.169/2001 -3- 5. 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 whether the third defendant-respondent No.3 took illegal connection and was committing theft of the electricity but it was not found to be proved. On going through the reasonings assigned by learned Trial Court on this issue I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment in order to hold that any theft was being made by defendant No.3. Indeed, charge-sheet was also filed against him and he was tried for the offence under Section 304-A, but, was acquitted from the said charge. The issue No.2 was framed in respect to death on account of electrocution and issue No.3 was framed as to whether on account of negligent act of the defendants-appellants the deceased had died on account of electrocution.
6. The FIR is Ex.P-3. The first plaintiff Chhotelal Sahu has been examined as PW-1. He was at his home where he was informed that his son had died on account of electrocution. Immediately this witness went to the spot and found that the deceased was lying nearby the stay wire and had died on account of electrocution. Ajaypal Saket has been examined as PW-2. This witness on hearing the hue and cry F.A. No.169/2001 -4- went to the spot and found that the deceased had died on account of electrocution.
7. On behalf of the defendants, Assistant Engineer Brijendra Singh has been examined as DW-1. Assistant Lineman Dhirendra Pratap Singh has been examined as DW-2. These witnesses were not present on the spot. Nothing has been carved out from their evidence that the deceased had not died on account of electrocution. 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.
8. 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 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 F.A. No.169/2001 -5- 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 assigned by learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiffs to the extent of Rs.80,000/- along with interest. The reasons so assigned are cogent and I do not find any ground to deviate from those reasonings.
9. Resultantly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.5000/- if pre-certified. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE 26 03.2013 sach