The High Court dismissed a first appeal filed by Ajmer Vidyut Nigam Limited against a judgment awarding compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act. Upholding the trial court's findings on negligence and strict liability, the court rejected the appeal and affirmed the decree.
The first appeal was failed and dismissed summarily by this Court.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 404/2018
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s)
(2 of 7)
[CFA-404/2018]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Judgment
14/09/2018
Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL), through its Officers, has laid this first appeal under Section 96 CPC to question the legality and propriety of judgment & decree dated 9th of March, 2018, passed by Addl. District Judge, Sagwara, District Dungarpur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’). By the impugned judgment & decree, learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit filed by respondents for compensation under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (for short, 'Act') and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,10,000 with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit.
Necessary facts, for the purpose of this appeal, are that respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for compensation under the Act on 8th of May, 2015 before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, which was later on transferred to the learned trial Court. In the suit, respondent-plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs.26 Lakhs, on the ground that deceased Vinod died on account of electrocution, as current was flowing in the electric pole fixed on the boundary of the field and he came in contract thereof. Negligence and careless of the defendants was alleged and it was stated in the claim that at the time of his death Vinod was 22 years of age and engaged in agriculture work. On the fateful day,
(3 of 7)
[CFA-404/2018]
he had gone to irrigate the field where maize crop was standing. The cause of accident, which resulted in death of Vinod was attributed to the appellants precisely on the ground that they are expected to take safety measures to prevent any mishap including loss of human life. After service of summons, appellants contested the claim of respondent-plaintiffs and filed detailed reply to the claim refuting their negligence, as alleged in the plaint, and stated that the incident occurred due to negligence of deceased himself as he was careless. The appellants also denied their responsibility and prayed for dismissal of the suit filed against them.
The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, framed issues for determination. For substantiating their claim, respondent-plaintiffs examined two witnesses PW1 Gattu, and PW2 Prem Singh and exhibited Exs.1 to 10. In counter, appellants tendered evidence of DW1 Arvind, DW2 Ramesh and also exhibited documents Exs.A-1 to A-11. After recording evidence of the parties, learned trial Court heard final arguments and by the impugned judgment & decree partly allowed the claim of the respondent-plaintiffs.
Although, in first appeals, normally the Courts summon the record of the trial Court but looking to the peculiar facts of the case and considering the amended provisions under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC, it is not necessary to call for the record of the learned trial Court. Reliance, in this behalf, can be placed on U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Sheo Narain Kushwaha & Ors. [(2011) 6
(4 of 7)
[CFA-404/2018]
SCC 456], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, while interpreting the amended Rule 11(1) of Order 41 CPC, has held that dismissal of first appeal in limine is permissible, but has put a rider that it is required to be dismissed by a reasoned order. The Apex Court made following observations in Para 7, 9 & 10:
In the instant case, on appreciation of evidence and available material, the learned trial Court decided issue No. 1 about death
(5 of 7)
[CFA-404/2018]
of Vinod by electrocution on account of negligence of appellants in maintenance of electric pole in favour of respondent-plaintiffs and against the appellants. While deciding issue No.2 relating to entitlement of plaintiffs to get compensation, the learned trial Court finally fastened the liability to pay compensation on appellants considering the decisions of Supreme Court in case of (1) Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. [(2013) 9 SCC 65], and (2) Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum Vs. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176].
Hon'ble Apex Court, in M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari & Ors. [(2002) 2 SCC 162], examined the doctrine of Strict Liability and observed that irrespective of any negligence or carelessness of an individual, State Electricity Board is liable to pay damages for snap electrocution. The Court held:
"Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions."
(6 of 7)
[CFA-404/2018]
Therefore, the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court are just and proper on the touchstone of evidence and available material as well as law on the subject. In totality, decision of the learned trial Court on both the issues is infallible.
Regarding quantum of compensation for which the respondent-claimants are held entitled, in absence of any cogent evidence, more particularly any adverse evidence by the appellants for determining the age of the deceased, the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the same. Moreover, the learned Tribunal, in the light of available material, has moderately assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000 per annum, and after making deduction of 1/3rd income for personal expenses, applied multiplier of 18 and worked out the total amount of compensation Rs.3,60,000 under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ and thereafter adding Rs.50,000 for mental agony, pain and sufferings, finally, declared the respondent-claimants entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,10,000. In my considered opinion, the approach of the learned trial Court in assessing the compensation is just and reasonable and even the multiplier, which is pressed into service by the learned Court below is appropriate and in conformity with the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court.
Therefore, viewed from any angle, findings and conclusions of the learned Court below on the issues and quantifying compensation by the learned Court below is just and reasonable
(7 of 7)
[CFA-404/2018]
which requires no interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Resultantly, I am not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment & decree passed by the learned trial Court. The present appeal, therefore, fails and same is dismissed
summarily.
(P.K. LOHRA),J
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the first appeal filed by the appellant under Section 96 CPC lacks merit and requires summary dismissal under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.
Whether the findings of the learned trial Court regarding negligence and liability under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act are defensible.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower court is reasonable and依法 sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Sheo Narain Kushwaha & Ors.Referred¶30
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Sheo Narain Kushwaha & Ors. [(2011) 6 SCC 456] · Who else cites this
Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.Followed¶37
Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. [(2013) 9 SCC 65] · Who else cites this
Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum Vs. Susamma ThomasFollowed¶37
Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum Vs. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176] · Who else cites this
M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari & Ors.Followed¶38
M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari & Ors. [(2002) 2 SCC 162] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajmer Vidyut Nigam Limited
Gattu S/o Shri Dhula Bamniya
Smt. Ganga W/o Shri Gattu Bamaniya
Kumari Radah D/o Shri Gattu Bamaniya
Shri Rahul S/o Shri Gattu Bamaniya
Kumari Neelam D/o Shri Gattu Bamaniya
P.K. Lohra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
