High Court dismissed appeal against decree awarding 50% compensation to deceased's mother. Court held house owner liable for breach of Rule 80 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 regarding clearance distance from high voltage line.
Appeal dismissed; appellant directed to pay cost of appeal to respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
FA No. 633 of 2000
All are R/o Village Bisrampur, Police Station Jainagar, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surguja Madhya Pradesh Now Chhattisgarh ............Defendents
---- Appellants
Versus
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate No representation is made on behalf of the respondents, despite service of notice.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order On Board
03/01/2019
3
defendant was not responsible for the accident.
4
that the trial Court failed to appreciate the facts in proper perspective and thereby the wrong finding has arrived at.
5
such engagement of deceased was made by Sharma Tent House. The death of the deceased by the electrocution is not denied and the electricity board on whom the half of the liability was fastened to the extent of Rs.28,800/- is not before this Court in appeal. Therefore, the strict liability of the electricity board has been accepted by the electricity board. It is only the part of the liability which is fastened on the owner of the house wherein the deceased sustained the injuries has to be looked into that whether the liability was correctly fastened or not ?
there in between high and extra- high voltage line, which are reproduced hereunder:-
“80. Clearances from buildings of high and extra-high voltage lines-
(1) Where a high or extra-high voltage overhead line passes above or adjacent to any building or part of a building it shall have on the basis of maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part of the building immediately under such line, of not less than-
(a) for high voltage lines upto 3.7 meters and including 33,000 volts
(b) for extra- high voltage lines 3.7 meters plus 0.30 metre for every additional 33,000 volts or
6
part thereof.
(2) The horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor and any part of such building shall, on the basis of maximum deflection due to wind pressure, be not less than-
(a) for high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts
1.2 meters
(b) For high voltage lines above 11,000 volts upto and including 33,000 volts
2.0 meters
(c) for extra-high voltage lines
2.0 meters plus
0.3 metre for every additional 33,000 volts for part thereof.
82. Erection of or alternation to buildings, structures, flood banks and elevation of roads- (1) If at any time subsequent to the erection of an overhead line (whether covered with insulating material or bare), any person proposes to erect a new building or structure or flood bank or to raise any road level or to carry out any other type of work whether permanent or temporary or to make in or upon any building or structure of flood bank or road, any permanent or temporary addition or alternation, he and the contractor whom he employs to carry out the erection, addition or alteration, shall, if such work, building, structure, flood bank, road or additions and alterations, thereto, would, during or after the construction result in contravention of any of the provisions of rule 77, 79 or 80, give notice in writing of his intention to the supplier and to the Inspector and shall furnish therewith a scale drawing showing the proposed building, structure, flood bank road, any addition or alteration and scaffolding required during the construction.
(2) (a) On receipt of the notice referred to in sub-rule (1) or otherwise, the supplier shall examine whether the line under reference was lawfully laid and whether the person was liable to pay the cost of alteration and if so, send a notice without undue delay, to such person together with an estimate of the cost of the expenditure likely to be incurred to so alter the overhead line and require him to deposit, within 30 days of the receipt of the notice with the supplier, the amount of the estimated cost.
7
(b) If the person referred to in sub-rule (1) disputes the supplier's estimated cost of alteration of the overhead line or even the responsibility to pay such cost, the dispute may be referred to the Inspector by either of the parties whereupon the same shall be decided by the Inspector.
(3) No work upon such building, structure, flood bank, road and addition or alternation thereto shall be commenced or continued until the Inspector has certified that the provisions of rule 77, 79 or 80 are not likely to be contravened either during or after the aforesaid construction:
Provided that the Inspector may, if he is satisfied that the overhead line has been so guarded as to secure the protection of persons or property from injury, or risk of injury, permit the work to be executed prior to the alteration of the overhead line or, in the case of temporary addition or alteration, without alteration of the overhead line.
(4) On receipt of the deposit, the supplier shall after the overhead line within one month of the date of deposit or within such longer period as the Inspector may allow and ensure that it shall not contravene the provisions of rule 77, 79 or 80 either during or after such construction.
(5) In the absence of an agreement to the contrary between the parties concerned, the cost of such alteration of the overhead line laid down shall be estimated on the following basis, namely: -
(6) Where the estimated cost of the alteration of the overhead line is not deposited, the supplier shall be considered as an aggrieved party for the purpose of this rule.
8
voltage line of 33 KV, therefore, if the said construction was made by not following the Rule 80 of the Rules, 1956 and the distance was not maintained, the construction of the house itself was not according to the rule which mandates that certain distance was to be maintained. If the same is not done in such case in the event of happening of untoward incident the owner of house cannot avoid the liability for damages. It is an admitted fact that the accident had occurred in the house while the tent was being erected for the marriage, therefore, the liability to the extent of 50% as has been fastened on the present appellants cannot be faulted as it cannot be held that the appellant was completely ignorant of the fact have proceeded and abided by the law. Under the circumstances, after entire scrutiny of the evidence, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Court below do not call for any interference by this Court. The appeal has no merit, it is accordingly dismissed. It is further directed that the appellant shall also be liable to pay the cost of this appeal to the respondents.
Ashu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the liability fastened on the house owner for the accident could be avoided given the construction violated clearances under the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956?
Whether the trial court erred in holding the appellant liable for 50% compensation share when the house was built in contravention of safety rules?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shulil Kumar Jain and others
Rajkumari Died Through Lrs and another
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
