Judgment:
N.K. Mody, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and the Decree dated 14-8-96 whereby the appellant and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 84,000/- as compensation, the present appeal has been filed.
2. Short facts of the case are that on 7-6-84, Hira died on account of electrocution by corning into contact with naked wires and respondent No. 3 also sustained injuries because of electrocution and her three fingers were amputated. Respondent Nos. 1-5 being the L.Rs, of deceased Hira filed a suit for damages against the appellant and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on 12-3-86 for a sum of Rs, 1,65,000/-, in which it was alleged that the accident occurred due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the appellant and respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The suit was contested by the appellant and respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It was alleged that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. It was also alleged that if there was any negligence on the part of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 then appellant is not responsible for the same. In view of this, it was prayed that suit be dismissed.
3. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and held that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are jointly responsible for payment of Rs. 84,000/- as compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and the Decree passed by the learned trial Court, the present appeal has been filed.
4. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 also challenged the Judgment and Decree impugned herein, in F. A. No. 245/96 and 243/96 respectively. Both the appeals have been dismissed vide order dated 1-4-98 and 19-11-97.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the accident occurred because of the electricity stolen by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and therefore, appellant cannot be held responsible for payment of compensation. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar : [2002]1SCR164 , wherein it was observed that - responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality is statutorily conferred on the Electricity Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of its dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
6. Learned Counsel further submits that burden was on the appellant to show that accident has occurred in spite of due care being taken. For this contention, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Chairman M.P. Electricity Board v. Smt. Gindiabai reported in 1999 (1) MPLJ 587. It is submitted that appellant has not examined any evidence to prove that in spite of taking due care, the accident occurred. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Ramesh Singh Pawar v. M.P. Electricity Board reported in : AIR2005MP2 , wherein after considering the case law, it was observed by this Court that it was incumbent upon the Board authorities to take all such steps as is reasonably expected to be done for preventing such an accident endangering life. It was further held that on the ground of negligence as also on the principle of strict liability, the Board is liable to pay compensation. In this case, a sum of Rs. 2 lacs was awarded.
7. From perusal of record, it appears that appellant has not adduced any evidence. In the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below holding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the appellant. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 600/- per month and out of that after deducting one-third amount, dependency has been assessed @ Rs. 400/- per month which is less than the notional income.
In view of this, the appeal has no merits. Hence, it is dismissed. Appellant shall be further liable to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
The appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.