The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the civil first appeal filed by the defendant against a compensation decree. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the appellant's negligence caused the death of a workman due to electric shock.
The civil first appeal filed by the defendant is liable to be dismissed.
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
BENCH AT JAIPUW
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 137/1997
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Vidyut Marg, Jaipur
Versus
, " **,A* .; .w 7-a ,a L z ,<" **q** * **b.** \ ,r3 1 " For Appellant(s) EP'" .,>? :e : 5 ( yF:kKst&lok Garg, Advocate through . ., ?I VC i3 * For Respondent(sj J:,,~~M..~P.s. r: .p Sharma, Advocate through VC '1
2 ::> J..iidqnient Sf :@;&j: , . +&&&@ a, $'; 4 59 q: a I p 06/01/2022 ; .$+ +3h,z: 8 re< *.< :; .$ d 2 ,:
48
This Civil Regul.ar First' Appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant (for jhok, 'the defendant') under Section 96 +h judgment and decree dated 20.07.1996 passed by Additional District Judge No. I, Ajmer (for short 'the trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 104/93 : Gulabi and Ors. Vs. Chaiman, RSEB, whereby the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') has been decreed arid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/has been awarded as compensation along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the suit.
Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the defendants before the trial court claiming compensation on account of death of Mangu Rawat, who died on 14.02.1993, when he came in contact with iron wire which was installed in the ground in order to support the electricity pole and in which electric current was flowing.
Necessary issues were framed. Evidence was led. ,? $& a. After hearii),& +s?r. C Sa &Lt6?keipa~ties, the trial court vide its ,& $ Y! * judgment and:2.,deGree -.% dated 20.07.1996, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/"-,al'dng with interest @ 9% p.a. as compensation.
earned counsel for the defendant submits that there was no fault of the defendan,t::$ie;frther submits that no current 8 *L-"",. %!+: a 5 % r " ?f ,, * was flowing in the wii.e,~whi:c'h' :&%,? is 'evident from the fact that no Ji?i"& ; -,p * ". &.% I qrq %, ,% Yi burn marks signs/blacktfou.n&-in %h,e body of Mangu. The learned -% trial court has passed kbh:e;fjH$gmyent without due appreciation of Sy&$.;&.$$;p.. '-. , + +.*: b . ..;a, <,', Ti$$&@ t&$t&m 2.2.. ,114 the evidence available o;n ;j re~D-ra'd$ :.-. andd thus committed material "a V' illegality.
On the othe;~ -I. hbnd, -* - .:learned counsel for the plaintiffs h 'l 3 ;.a,# : .tC submits that from the:plant,ffs'eviidence 4 e2sj+, i*-.4i\l$sP::d {it!is evident that death :* % %%." 5 * 4; "<?, _ui.;_ *A.** c *s-x , ;,; ..w -2.- of Mangu Rawat took pla@+eY&e to negligence of the defendants. % After considering each $li:-,e&ve~ry, aspect of the matter, the learned tria.1 court has rightly passed the impugned judgment. Hence, no interference therewith is required by this Court.
Heard. Considered.
The sole question which arises for determination in this
appeal is:
'Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of
evidence or not?'
Dr. Rajesh Tekchandani, PW-3, in his examination-inchief categorically stated that Mang.u "Rawat died due to electric shock. In his cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of Mangu Rawat's death, his palm were pale, which is caused due to electric shock. He further admitted that electric current flew in the hand of Mangu Rawat.
The trial court dealt with each and every aspect of the jg *& s. matter and rightly +?-';., ,.eaqz!,rdkd.4~~. $., .4 1,00,00@/- alongwith interest @ ,. t .$.
:abin~ regard to the submissions made by learned counsel %r the parties, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case q~dZ%die particularly in view of the "t. ,& - 4 .* 9, evidence of Dr. ajes,h-'ekchadani, ,522 PW-3, I am of the view that x ... , 4 -.r the trial Court dealt wei?t$&acp and every aspect of the matter and '*'L. " ** <. &"%""+ +>;= $;<# "-'; g&% :+ has rightly awarded RS?L&$PQOC~O;/; **3: $>c.s.** .a,+!79> ,2.%d witfkinterest @ 9% p.a. as .4&g2gfg2>k;,?x 2 t<S"&p: ,..g;s.. , compensation. The finding's 9rr;lykd at by the trial Court ag%@w k*) ". ,. 8 is based on proper evidence thus the qyestion is answered accordingly. i ,z&:, & ,i; For the afores5i+d$a,sons, +! :xsi6 . ..yp,,b." z. p-,.% the..civil "-% first appeal filed by fiq; :?%, $ & * : the defendant is liabl&\itgbke:$.missed,vhhich I& stands dismissed . - I : r %2-2,:;z$3i,+ ":!.::? * .%.* I I jccordingly. All pending a~@l~@??a~iLon(s),, if any, also stand disposed of.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence or not?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Smt. Gulabi W/o Late Shri Mangu Rawat
Sukhdeo s/o late Sh. Mangu Rawat
Kurnari Indira D/o late Mangu Rawat
Chandan Rawat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
