Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Ram Charan Tanya and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/512339
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJan-18-2001
JudgeV.K. Agrawal, J.
Reported inIII(2002)ACC305
AppellantMadhya Pradesh Electricity Board and anr.
RespondentRam Charan Tanya and anr.
Excerpt:
- - 1 alleged that his father deceased jagannath died of electrocution on account of negligence on the part of appellants as well as respondent no. 1 supported the impugned judgment and decree and asserted that the appellants have failed to prove their defence that the deceased interpolated with the neutral wire. 13. the above evidence would clearly go to show that in the incomplete line there was electric current which was not on account of any act on the part of the deceased.v.k. agrawal, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1997, in civil suit no. 2-b/1996, by third additional district judge, satna, whereby compensation of rs. 65,000/- was granted in favour of the claimant /respondent no. 1.2. the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 is the son of deceased jagannath patel, who died of electrocution from the electric line being installed by the defendants/ appellants. the appellants had given the contract to instal the said electric connection to respondent no. 2.3. the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 alleged that his father deceased jagannath died of electrocution on account of negligence on the part of appellants as well as respondent no. 2. it was averred that the deceased was aged about fifty years. it was also averred by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1, that the deceased used to earn rs. 50.00 per day. plaintiff claimed compensation of rs. 2 lacs.4. the claim as above was contested on behalf of the appellants. they denied that there was any negligence on their part. according to their averments, the work of installation of electric connection was in progress and the neutral wire had been wound up, around the electric pole by the workers installing the electric line. that neutral wire was interfered with by the deceased, due to which he got electrocuted and died.5. the learned trial court after appreciation of evidence held that the electrocution of the deceased took place on account of negligence on the part of defendants. it was also held that compensation of rs. 65,000/- deserves to be granted to the claimant/respondent no. 1. the suit of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 was accordingly decreed and a sum of rs. 65,000/- as compensation was granted to him.6. learned counsel for appellants submitted that the accident did not take place on account of negligence on the part of appellants. it was submitted that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. it was, therefore, submitted that the appellants are not liable to pay compensation.7. as against the above, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 supported the impugned judgment and decree and asserted that the appellants have failed to prove their defence that the deceased interpolated with the neutral wire. therefore, the plaintiff's version that the accident occurred due to negligence of the defendants/appellants was rightly accepted by the learned trial court. it was, therefore, submitted that the trial court was justified in decreeing the claim of plaintiff/respondent no. 1.8. the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the deceased died on account of negligence on the part of appellants or as to whether he interfered with the neutral wire resulting in his death?9. it may be noted that the plaintiff ram charan (p.w. 1) has stated that his father deceased jagannath had gone to collect fuel-wood. in the evening he found that his father was electrocuted and was lying dead in his field. his statement to the above effect is fully corroborated by the statement of kedar prasad patel (p.w. 2), who has stated that deceased died of electrocution. thus, the plaintiff has established that the deceased died of electrocution.10. the question which now arises for consideration is: as to whether the accident as above took place on account of negligence of the defendants/appellants or whether the deceased jagannath himself was responsible for the accident, as was the defence of the appellants? in the above context the evidence led by the defendants/appellants will have to be considered.11. the appellants have examined shiv prasad vaishya (d.w. 1) the helper, who was executing and supervising the work of installation of electric connection to the poles. he has stated that before the incident some person of village had joined the jumper in the electric connection resulting in the flow of electricity in the incomplete work of installation of electric connection. he further stated that after seeing the above state of affairs, he had gone to maihar and informed his officers about it. he also stated that in the same evening a person was electrocuted.12. thus, it would be evident from the statement of shiv prasad vaishya (d.w. 1), that shiv prasad vaishya had noticed that the electric current was flowing from the incomplete work of electric line on the spot. it is also clear from his statement that the deceased was not the person who interfered with the electric connection. the statement of kedar prasad patel (p.w. 2) shows that the loose wire was lying in the field and the deceased got electrocuted by it.13. the above evidence would clearly go to show that in the incomplete line there was electric current which was not on account of any act on the part of the deceased. it would also appear from the above evidence that the deceased got electrocuted from the loose wire lying in the field. it is clear that the appellants were responsible for proper installation of electric connection, it is also evident from the above evidence that even before the installation was completed, electric current was flowing from wires. one of the loose wires was lying in the field which resulted in electrocution and death of deceased. the helper shiv prasad vaishya did not take care to remove the jumper or to disconnect the electric connection, even after noticing that electric current was flowing in the line of the incomplete work. there is no evidence to establish the defence of appellants that the accident occurred on account of interference by the deceased with the neutral wire, as was the pleaded case of the appellants. the appellants, therefore, were rightly held to be negligent.14. accordingly, compensation was justifiably granted to the claimant/ respondent no. 1. this appeal, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Judgment:

V.K. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1997, in Civil Suit No. 2-B/1996, by Third Additional District Judge, Satna, whereby compensation of Rs. 65,000/- was granted in favour of the claimant /respondent No. 1.

2. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is the son of deceased Jagannath Patel, who died of electrocution from the electric line being installed by the defendants/ appellants. The appellants had given the contract to instal the said electric connection to respondent No. 2.

3. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 alleged that his father deceased Jagannath died of electrocution on account of negligence on the part of appellants as well as respondent No. 2. It was averred that the deceased was aged about fifty years. It was also averred by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, that the deceased used to earn Rs. 50.00 per day. Plaintiff claimed compensation of Rs. 2 lacs.

4. The claim as above was contested on behalf of the appellants. They denied that there was any negligence on their part. According to their averments, the work of installation of electric connection was in progress and the neutral wire had been wound up, around the electric pole by the workers installing the electric line. That neutral wire was interfered with by the deceased, due to which he got electrocuted and died.

5. The learned Trial Court after appreciation of evidence held that the electrocution of the deceased took place on account of negligence on the part of defendants. It was also held that compensation of Rs. 65,000/- deserves to be granted to the claimant/respondent No. 1. The suit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was accordingly decreed and a sum of Rs. 65,000/- as compensation was granted to him.

6. Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that the accident did not take place on account of negligence on the part of appellants. It was submitted that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellants are not liable to pay compensation.

7. As against the above, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 supported the impugned judgment and decree and asserted that the appellants have failed to prove their defence that the deceased interpolated with the neutral wire. Therefore, the plaintiff's version that the accident occurred due to negligence of the defendants/appellants was rightly accepted by the learned Trial Court. It was, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the claim of plaintiff/respondent No. 1.

8. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the deceased died on account of negligence on the part of appellants or as to whether he interfered with the neutral wire resulting in his death?

9. It may be noted that the plaintiff Ram Charan (P.W. 1) has stated that his father deceased Jagannath had gone to collect fuel-wood. In the evening he found that his father was electrocuted and was lying dead in his field. His statement to the above effect is fully corroborated by the statement of Kedar Prasad Patel (P.W. 2), who has stated that deceased died of electrocution. Thus, the plaintiff has established that the deceased died of electrocution.

10. The question which now arises for consideration is: as to whether the accident as above took place on account of negligence of the defendants/appellants or whether the deceased Jagannath himself was responsible for the accident, as was the defence of the appellants? In the above context the evidence led by the defendants/appellants will have to be considered.

11. The appellants have examined Shiv Prasad Vaishya (D.W. 1) the helper, who was executing and supervising the work of installation of electric connection to the poles. He has stated that before the incident some person of village had joined the jumper in the electric connection resulting in the flow of electricity in the incomplete work of installation of electric connection. He further stated that after seeing the above state of affairs, he had gone to Maihar and informed his officers about it. He also stated that in the same evening a person was electrocuted.

12. Thus, it would be evident from the statement of Shiv Prasad Vaishya (D.W. 1), that Shiv Prasad Vaishya had noticed that the electric current was flowing from the incomplete work of electric line on the spot. It is also clear from his statement that the deceased was not the person who interfered with the electric connection. The statement of Kedar Prasad Patel (P.W. 2) shows that the loose wire was lying in the field and the deceased got electrocuted by it.

13. The above evidence would clearly go to show that in the incomplete line there was electric current which was not on account of any act on the part of the deceased. It would also appear from the above evidence that the deceased got electrocuted from the loose wire lying in the field. It is clear that the appellants were responsible for proper installation of electric connection, It is also evident from the above evidence that even before the installation was completed, electric current was flowing from wires. One of the loose wires was lying in the field which resulted in electrocution and death of deceased. The helper Shiv Prasad Vaishya did not take care to remove the jumper or to disconnect the electric connection, even after noticing that electric current was flowing in the line of the incomplete work. There is no evidence to establish the defence of appellants that the accident occurred on account of interference by the deceased with the neutral wire, as was the pleaded case of the appellants. The appellants, therefore, were rightly held to be negligent.

14. Accordingly, compensation was justifiably granted to the claimant/ respondent No. 1. This appeal, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.