Rampat Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others

The plaintiff is in seco n d appeal before this Court against the concurrent judgments and d e crees of the learned Courts below wher e by the suit of the appellant/pl a intiff for damages to the tune of Rs.80,00 0 /-, has been dismissed by b o th the Courts below - vide judgment d a ted 10.04.2017 passed by th e learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Re w ari; affirmed vide judgment d a ted 01.11.2018 passed by the

¶13

learned Dist r ict and Sessions Judge, Rewari.

¶14

The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per thei r status befor e the learned trial Court i.e. th e appellant as the ‘plaintiff’, an d the respond e nts as the ‘defendants’.

¶15

Brief facts of the case ar e that the plaintiff had filed th e present suit seeking damages of Rs.80,0 0 0/- from the defendant no.1 - Board on th e ground that the buffalo of the p laintiff had died on 23.08.201 5 due to the e lectrocution suffered by it on a ccount of falling of an electri c wire of 110 0 0 KV which was lying on the earth. The incident had taken

¶16

SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Page 2 of 7

¶18

place at about 6:30 pm and the matter was also reported to the Police.Th e post-morte m report of the buffalo was als o conducted by MO Veterinar y Hospital, Dh a ruhera. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the said live wire of 1 1,000 KV had been lying for the last 1.5 months in the village o f the plaintiff . The plaintiff and other vill a gers had complained to th e authorities m any times regarding the broke n wire, but no action was take n upon it by t he defendants. The incident h ad taken place on account o f negligence on the Department of def e ndants and defendants ar e responsible f or the death of plaintiff's buffa l o. It is further stated that valu e of the buffalo was Rs. 80,000/- and there f ore plaintiff is entitled for th e damages of Rs. 80,000/-with interest @ 18% per annum from the date o f incident till its realization. Plaintiff had also lodged a DDR in Police Statio n Dharuhera v ide DDR no. 23 dated 23.0 8 .2015 regarding the death o f plaintiff's b u ffalo. Application to Deputy C ommissioner Rewari was als o written on t h e same date but to no effect. T h ereafter plaintiff served a lega l notice to th e defendants through his legal c ounsel vide registered post on 02.09.2015. However defendant neither re p lied to the notice nor paid th e amount of R s . 80,000/- to the plaintiff. Henc e the present suit. 4. Upon notice, the defen d ants appeared and filed join t written stat e ment contesting the suit raisin g various objections on merits a s well as for m al objections. Replication wa s filed denying the averment s made in the written statement and reiterati n g those made in the plaint. O n the basis of p leadings of the parties, followi n g issues were framed: -

¶19

SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

Page 3 of 7

¶21

“1 Whether the plaintiff is entit l ed to a recovery of Rs. 80,000/ - with interest @ 18% per annu m from the date of institution o f the hand till its realixation wit h cost of the suit in hand fro m the defendant as averred by plaintiff? OPP

¶22

2 Whether the suit in hand is n ot maintainable in the presen t f orm? OPD

¶23

3 Whether the plaintiff has no c ause of action and locus stand i to file the suit in hand? OPD

¶24

4 Whether the suit is not maint a inable for want of jurisdiction ? OPD

¶25

5 Relief”

¶26

On the basis of pleadi n gs and oral & documentary evidence ad d uced by the parties, the suit o f the plaintiff was dismissed with costs b y the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.04.2017; w hich was affirmed by the lear n ed lower Appellate Court vide judgment a n d decree dated 01.11.2018. Hence, the present second appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the p laintiff inter alia submits that

¶28

the suit of the plaintiff has been wrongly d ismissed by both the Courts below. The p laintiff had proved the negli g ence of the defendants. The plaintiff had even reported the matter to t he Police in respect of which DDR dated 2 3.08.2015 regarding the death of the buffalo of the plaintiff had been pl a ced on record. Even the post- m ortem report (Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.P2) of t h e buffalo which was condu c ted by the Medical Officer, Veterinary H ospital, Dharuhera was annex e d with the plaint. It is duly

¶29

SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

Page 4 of 7

¶31

proved that the cause of death of buffalo was electric shock. As such, negligence o f the defendant-Department is duly proved. However, all this entire evidence has been wrongly disreg a rded by the learned Courts below. Ther e fore, suit of the plaintiff has be e n wrongly dismissed. Learned counsel acc o rdingly prays for setting aside o f the impugned judgments.

¶32

No other argument is rai s ed on behalf of the plaintiff. 8. I have heard learned c ounsel for the plaintiff and perused the case file in great detail. 9. At the very outset, it m ay be pointed out that the present sec o nd appeal is of the year 2019 and notice has not yet been issued in th e same as it has been adjourned either at request of or due to non-appear a nce of learned counsel for the plaintiff on 09.07.2019, 25.08.2022, 0 9.08.2023, 18.01.2024, 17.05. 2 024 and 01.10.2024. 10. It is the contention of le a rned counsel for the plaintiff that the buf f alo of the plaintiff had died du e to the electric shock suffered by it due t o an open electric wire lying o f 11000 KV in the village. In support the plaintiff has relied upon Post- M ortem Report (Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.P2). How e ver, no reliance can be place d upon the said Post-Mortem Report as it was not proven in accordanc e with law as the concerned Medical Offi c er had not been examined by t h e plaintiff. 11. Further, the entire case s et up by the plaintiff appears to be false as it is also to be borne in mind that in case wire of 11000 KV line is broke n , then the entire line would ge t tripped within a few seconds

¶33

SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

Page 5 of 7

¶35

and the Controlling Authorities will immediately and automatically know about this d a mage. Moreover, in such an e v ent, supply to the entire area would be di s rupted. However, there is not h ing on record to indicate that this had tra n spired. It is therefore to be inferred that no wire of 11000 KV was lying on the earth. It has also been denied by the defendants that any complaint in this regard was received in th e ir office from the plaintiff. In this respect , the defendants had produ c ed their Complaint Register (Ex.D1) which did not reflect any complain t received on 23.08.2015. The learned Cou r ts below found that there was no reason to doubt the Ex.D1 as the same is a public document which is m aintained in ordinary course of business a nd is admitted in evidence. Even the photographs (Ex.PW1/4) did not refle c t any electric pole near the pla c e of incident. The negative of the said ph o tographs were not produced o n record by the plaintiff nor was it state d by the Photographer (PW3) t h at the said pictures had been taken by a digital camera. Moreover, a perusal of the photograph (Ex.PW1/4) s howed that two photographs h ad been superimposed upon each other. In the first half of the photo g raph an electricity pole was shown on s e mi-rock type of structure; a n d in the second part of the photographs, green fields were shown whe r e the buffalo was lying. From the above, i t was derived by the learned C o urts below that there was no connection between the two photographs; and that the picture (Ex.PW1/4) w as a badly doctored photogra p h. It is also admitted fact on record that in the vicinity of the allege d place of incident, there is

¶36

SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

Page 6 of 7

¶38

movement o f other cattle and other villag e rs. However, no other cattle had caught the electric wire and died.

¶39

The plaintiff has further a sserted that DDR No.23 dated 23.08.2015 (Ex.PW1/1) was filed by the plaintiff in respect of the incident in question. As regards the said DDR (Ex.P W 1/1), the ld. lower Appellate Court has o b served as follows in the judgment dated 01.11.2018:-

¶40

“14…Apart from this, as allege d in the DDR Ex.PW1/1, and as stated by appellant PW1, the b u ffalo had touched the electric pole and the live wire hanging with the electric pole and had been electrocuted. In his swo r n deposition he stated that even his wife, who was goin g with the buffalo had also received an electric shock. Ho w ever, his plea to this effect seems to be false one due to th e reason that no such pleading was made in the plaint. He als o did not produce any medical evidence on record to show th a t his wife had sustained any electric shock and had b e en m edico-legally examined. Moreso, she was the most m a terial witness of the case as according to the appellant, it w a s she who was present at the place where the incident had o c curred. However, she was not examined as a witness and therefore, the best evidence available with the appellant ha d been withheld by him…”

¶41

Needless to say, if a li v e electric wire of such high voltage had f allen on the ground then not o nly would the electric supply in the area b e disrupted, but there would b e other such similar incidents. However, t h ere is nothing whatsoever o n record to indicate either disruption of electric supply or any other incident. It would therefore

¶42

SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

Page 7 of 7

¶44

appear, a fal s e case has been set up by the p laintiff merely in order to get

¶45

damages.

¶46