Dismissed

A v. v N L and Ors. v Harsa Ram and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2021CFA/179/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil first appeal filed by the electricity board against a compensatory decree. Upholding the trial court's finding of negligence, the court held that the appellants failed to produce documentary or oral evidence to rebut the claimants' claim regarding death due to electrocution.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 3,55,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. awarded to the respondents as compensation for the death of Jagdish Ram's son.

A v v N L and Ors. Vs Harsa Ram and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 179/2003

¶3

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through Its ChairmanCum-Managing Director, Ajmer Erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur

¶4

Superintending Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jhunjhunu Erstwhile Supdt. Engineer, R.S.E.B., Jhunjhunu

¶5

Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jhunjhunu Erstwhile R.S.E.B., Jhunjhunu

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Harsa Ram S/o Shri Mangu Ram, R/o Soti, Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶9

Sumitra Devi W/o Shri Harsa Ram, R/o Soti, Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jai Lodha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Ghiya, Adovocate Mr. Munindra Singh, Advocate

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

14/12/2021

¶15

This Civil Regular First Appeal has been filed by the appellants-non-claimants (for short, 'the non-claimants') under Section 96 CPC read with Section 2 of the Indian Fetal Accident Act, 1855 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.02.2003 passed by District Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Regular Suit (Fetal Accident Claim Case) No. 51/1999 : Harsaram & Anr. Vs. Chaiman, RSEB and Ors., whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants (for short

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CFA-179/2003]

¶18

‘the claimants’) has been allowed and awarded Rs. 3,55,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶19

Facts of the case are that the claimants filed a civil suit against the non-claimants before the trial court under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 claiming compensation on account of death of their son Jagdish, who was working in the agricultural field of Rajendra Singh and watering the field through sprinkler system. The reason of death of Jagdish is falling electricity wire which were down to earth, due to which sparking took place and in sprinkler, which deceased Jagdish was holding, electric current flew. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence was led and after hearing both the parties, the trial court vide its judgment 17.02.2003, held the claimants entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3,55,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. as compensation.

¶20

Learned counsel for the non-claimants submits that deceased Jagdish himself was negligent. Electricity line and wires were rightly stretched and there was no fault of the appellants. The learned trial court has passed the judgment without due appreciation of the evidence available on record and thus committed material illegality.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that from the claimants' evidence, it is evident that death of Jagdish took place due to negligence of the appellants. From the post mortem report of deceased Jagdish also, it was established that death of Jagdish took place due to electrocution. In rebuttal, no evidence was produced by the appellants that death of Jagdish took place due to his negligent act. After considering each and every aspect of the matter, the learned trial

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CFA-179/2003]

¶24

court has rightly passed the impugned judgment. Hence, no interference therewith is required by this Court.

¶25

Heard. Considered.

¶26

The trial court dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and found that in rebuttal of the claimants' evidence, no evidence, documentary or oral, was produced by the nonclaimants. The trial court rightly considered the income of the deceased @ Rs. 2500/- p.m. i.e. Rs. 30,000/- p.a. On that basis, the Trial Court deducted 1/3rd, which the deceased would have incurred on himself had he been alive and after taking into consideration the age of the deceased which was 25 years at the time of accident, the Trial Court applied the multiplier of 17 and awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,55,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. as compensation.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, the findings arrived at by the trial court are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record as the appellants did not produce any evidence to the effect that there was no fault on their part and electricity line and wires were rightly stretched. Hence no interference therewith is required by this Court.

¶28

For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil First Appeal filed by the non-claimants is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶29

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶30

Mohit-48

A v. v N L and Ors. v Harsa Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A v. v N L and Ors. v Harsa Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R F C Jaipur Vs Ram Swaroop

Girraj Prasad and Another Vs Murari Lal through Lrs and Others

Late Sh Chaturbhuj Jakhar through Lrs Vs Development Officer P S Peesangan and Ors.

Harpyari Bai and Ors. Vs Ballabhdas

Kailash Chand S/O Hukum Chand Vs Dharmendra @ Chuttali S/O Murarilal

Neetu and Ors. Vs Shriram General Inurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.