Dismissed

A v. v N L v Rameshwar Lal

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2022CFA/518/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Fatal Accidents Act appeal filed by the Electricity Board against a decree awarding compensation to the next of kin. Upholding strict liability principles, the court affirmed that the Board could not absolve itself due to alleged illegal usage by the deceased and set aside the trial court's findings.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The remaining 50% of damages along with interest to be disbursed to the plaintiffs.

A v v N L Vs Rameshwar Lal — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 518/2008

¶3

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., through General Manager

¶4

Supdt. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sabalpura Power House, Sikar.

¶5

Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Laxmangarh.

¶6

Asstt. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Laxmangarh.

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Rameshwar Lal S/o Hanmana Ram

¶10

Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Rameshwar Lal

¶11

by caste Jat resident of Bhilunda Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 73/2009

¶15

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., through General Manager

¶16

Supdt. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sabalpura Power House, Sikar.

¶17

Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Laxmangarh.

¶18

Asstt. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Laxmangarh.

¶19

----Appellant

¶20

Versus

¶21

Rameshwar Lal S/o Hanmana Ram

¶22

Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Rameshwar Lal

¶23

by caste Jat resident of Bhilunda Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar.

¶24

----Respondent

¶25

For Appellant(s) : Ram Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Amit Singh Shekhawat

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶27

Judgment

¶28

05/07/2022

¶29

The first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by appellants

¶30

defendants Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereafter `the AVVNL’)

¶31

(2 of 11)

¶32

[CFA-518/2008]

¶33

challenging the judgment and decree dated 25-7-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Sikar, in Suit No.106/2005 (52/2005), whereby and whereunder the suit for compensation under the Indian Fatal

¶34

Accidents Act, 1855 was decreed, compensation Rs.1,42,000/- to respondents plaintiffs (hereafter `the plaintiffs’) against appellants AVVNL on account of death of their son due to electrocution, was allowed.

¶35

The plaintiffs have filed cross objection for enhancement of compensation against the judgment dated 25-7-2008 whereby compensation has been awarded to plaintiffs.

¶36

The facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a civil suit claiming

¶37

compensation on account of accidental death of their son Ramswaroop, aged

¶38

14 years, who sustained electrocution on 5-2-2005 and died during the

¶39

course of treatment. He sustained electrocution, while he was working in agricultural field. It was averred that 11000 KV line was going over their agricultural land in khasra No.177 village Bhilund Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar and lines were not properly insulated, wires were hanging at low level and loose. About not fixing insulator and looseness of wires were

¶40

reported by elder son of plaintiffs Mahaveer to AVVNL, but the same was not heard. Police conducted proceedings under Section 174 CrPC. It was

¶41

averred that the deceased Ramswaroop was a student of 8 th class and was

¶42

(3 of 11)

¶43

[CFA-518/2008]

¶44

helping parents by all means. There were all hopes with their son. The

¶45

defendant AVVNL did not take care of complaint made by Mahaveer elder

¶46

son of plaintiffs. As such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit

¶47

was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15,66,000/-.

¶48

On issuing notices AVVNL filed written statement and denied the

¶49

allegation of negligence and stated that wires were in good condition and no complaint was ever made to the department regarding fault in the line. It was alleged that electricity was being used illegally and while taking the electric line illegally at home, deceased got electrocution due to his own carelessness and negligence. Thus, defendants admitted the fact of accident

¶50

and did not disputed the factum of death of deceased because of electrocution. It was the duty of plaintiffs to take precaution while working nearby electric lines and no liability could be shifted upon defendants.

¶51

On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed three issues.

¶52

Issue No.1 pertains to as to whether plaintiffs’ son Ram Swaroop died due to electrocution on 5-2-2005 on account of carelessness and negligence of defendant? Issue No.2 pertains to as to whether plaintiffs’ on account of death of their son due to electrocution, are entitled for compensation of

¶53

Rs.17,16,000/- against defendant? Issue No.3 pertains to relief?

¶54

(4 of 11)

¶55

[CFA-518/2008]

¶56

Plaintiffs examined six witnesses and exhibited 8 documents.

¶57

Defendants examined five witnesses and exhibited twenty two documents.

¶58

The trial court on appreciation of evidence of both parties oral and

¶59

documentary came to the conclusion that officials of AVVNL did not visit the site prior to accident or thereafter. The defence of AVVNL that accident of electrocution was not occurred at field but at house where electricity was used illegally was disbelieve on the ground that defendants did not examine any witness from the village whom statements were exhibited. Official witnesses were disbelieved on the ground that they were not present at the place of accident. Regarding allegation of theft it was observed that it was

¶60

the duty of the department to check and control illegal activity. Consequently the issue No.1 was decided in favour of plaintiffs.

¶61

With regard to issue No.2 regarding compensation the trial court relying on second schedule of Section 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act income of deceased being below 15 years of age deemed as Rs.15,000/- per year and reducing one third of which assessed Rs.10,000/- per year for calculation for compensation to parents and applying the multiplier of 13 paid Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation, on account of pain and suffering for loss of son Rs.10,000/- and for funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-, thus assessed total

¶62

compensation of Rs.1,42,000/-.

¶63

(5 of 11)

¶64

[CFA-518/2008]

¶65

Accordingly, vide judgment dated 25-7-2008 the suit was decreed for

¶66

payment of compensation Rs.1,42,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @

¶67

6% p.a., from 4-7-2005 which was to be paid to plaintiffs in equal measure.

¶68

Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree first appeal has been filed

¶69

by AVVNL challenging the impugned judgment. And cross objection have

¶70

been filed by plaintiffs for enhancement of compensation.

¶71

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned

¶72

judgment and decree as also other material available on record.

¶73

Learned counsel for defendants AVVNL has submitted that the

¶74

impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside as the trial court has

¶75

not considered the fact that fatal accident was not occurred at the field but

¶76

at the house when electricity was being used illegally. It has been further submitted that trial court has not considered this aspect of the case that

¶77

there was no complaint regarding leakage of electricity current in the pole.

¶78

The accident occurred when deceased put electric wire illegally upon the

¶79

11000 KV line, in presence of witnesses, whose statements were exhibited.

¶80

FIR of the accident was lodged after one month and during investigation by

¶81

police it was proved that no 11000 KV line was crossing the field of plaintiffs and no wire of 11000 KV line was broken. Thus there was no

¶82

negligence on the part of AVVNL. Therefore findings of the trial court are

¶83

(6 of 11)

¶84

[CFA-518/2008]

¶85

perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶86

On examination of record it appears that evidence have been led by

¶87

both parties in following manner:

¶88

Pw.1 Rameshwar Lal stated in his statement that on 5-2-2005 at 7.00 PM while his son Ramswaroop was changing pipr of shower sustained electric current from the wire of pole near well. He stated despite several requests insulator was not installed by officials. Pw.2 Jitendra, Pw.3 Balbir, Pw.4 Mahaveer, Pw.5 Rameshwar and Pw.6 Hemaram supported statements of the plaintiff and stated that on hearing hue and cry they rushed to well and found son of plaintiff stuck with electric wire, who was taken to hospital where he died. They also stated that despite several requests to AVVNL insulator was not installed and electrocution was occurred due to negligence of defendants.

¶89

In rebuttal defendants examined Om Prakash as NAW.1, who stated that there was no negligence of AVVNL but since the electricity was being used illegally at home and while deceased was repairing tape got electrocution. In his cross examination he admitted that deceased died because of electrocution. NAW.2 S.K. Mehta, NAW.3 Sitaram deposed same statements. NAW.4 Bhagwan Dev stated that he conducted enquiry in village and recorded statements of witnesses including the Sarpanch. He exhibited documents Ex.A-17 to A-22. NAW.5 Bhivsingh stated that he did not receive any complaint about breaking of wire or that any wire fell on LT line. He however admitted on 7-2-2005 when he visited the village he came to know about death of deceased due to electric current from the line which was illegally taken from the well at home.

¶90

As per evidence on record plaintiffs have proved that defendants

¶91

remain negligent and careless in maintaining electricity line and death of

¶92

plaintiffs’ son occurred due to electrocution, for which defendants are liable.

¶93

The factum of death occurred due to electrocution is well proved by panch

¶94

nama (Ex.2) and post mortem report (Ex.4), as also, as per admission of

¶95

(7 of 11)

¶96

[CFA-518/2008]

¶97

witness of defendant in his cross examination. In such scenario, the onus

¶98

shifted upon defendants and that officials of AVVNL failed to prove their

¶99

case that fatal accident was occurred at the house and not at field. The

¶100

AVVNL did not examine independent witnesses, whose statements were

¶101

exhibited, only officials were examined who were not present at the site nor did they visit the site after the accident despite coming to know about death of deceased. Therefore, the plea of defendant was rightly disbelieved by the

¶102

trial court. Documentary and oral evidence of plaintiffs have been rightly

¶103

believed to decide the issue in favour of plaintiffs. The delay of one month in

¶104

lodging FIR by plaintiff was not found fatal by the trial court relying on judgment in the case West Bangal State Electricity Board Vs. Sachin Banerjee [2002 ACJ 337]. The trial court has not committed any illegality in holding

¶105

the AVVNL responsible for death due to electrocution, which is well proved

¶106

by plaintiffs’ oral and documentary evidence.

¶107

In case of Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi [(2000)3 SCC

¶108

754] the Apex Court held that once it is established that death occurred on

¶109

account of electrocution while walking on road necessarily authorities

¶110

concerned must be held responsible for their negligence and compensation

was awarded.

(8 of 11)

[CFA-518/2008]

In case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar [AIR 2000 SC 551]

¶115

the Apex Court held that “it is the responsibility of the Electricity Board to

¶116

supply electric energy, but if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing

¶117

necessary devices. The liability cast on such person is known as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of 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. The

¶118

principle of strict liability was considered in paras 8 and 9, which reads

¶119

thus:-

¶120

“8. 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

¶121

(9 of 11)

¶122

[CFA-518/2008]

¶123

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.

¶124

The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English Common Law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher [1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330], Blackburn J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision:

¶125

“The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.”

¶126

In Kumari Kani Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board [2016(3) CDR

¶127

1499 (Raj.)], this court applied the principle of strict liability and held that

¶128

“Electricity Company is liable to pay compensation when accident occurs because of such electricity lines which are not maintained properly”. To hold so reliance was placed on Raman Vs. State of Haryana [2015 ACJ 484], wherein the Apex Court held that “on failure to use all reasonable means to prevent escape of an inherently dangerous thing, which by nature electricity is, the standard of care will be very high and the onus would on the supplier

¶129

to show that there was not negligence.”

¶130

15. In the Executive Engineer Vs. Pramod [2015(1) KCC R 850] Karnataka

¶131

High Court held that “the Electricity Board cannot absolve liability on

¶132

grounds that accident took place due to illegal act on part of victim in trying

¶133

(10 of 11)

¶134

[CFA-518/2008]

¶135

to draw power from mainline unauthorisedly when once the death is to be

¶136

in the context of functioning of Board. Principle of strict liability applies and

¶137

Board is bound to compensate the claimants”.

¶138

On appreciation of factual and legal position aforesaid, findings of

¶139

trial court on issues No.1 and 2 are found well within jurisdiction and parameters of law, which do not suffer from any perversity. This is a proved case of plaintiffs where their son died due to electrocution because of negligence on the part of defendant AVVNL in not maintaining electric line properly. Further according to the principle of strict liability the electricity

¶140

department is absolutely liable to compensate sufferers. Thus, with regard to

¶141

findings of issues No.1 and 2, there is no illegality or infirmity in the

¶142

judgment of the trial court.

¶143