Dismissed

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Smt Lali Devi

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2022CFA/54/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal disposed of dismissing the appeal filed by power distribution company challenging compensation decree awarded to relatives of deceased killed by electric shock. Court upheld trial court findings and dismissed cross-objection on failure to survive.

What did the court decide?

Civil First Appeal dismissed; Cross-objection disposed of as it did not survive the dismissal of the appeal.

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Smt Lali… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

3HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FQR WAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 5412000

¶4

1)Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur throuigh its Managing Director 2) The Chief Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur 3) The Superintending Engineer (Div. C), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sikar

¶5

The Executing Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sikar 5) The Asstt. Engineer (O&M), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Piprali HQ Sikar 6) The Junior Engineer " (0,&1(1J, ;,' 1 Ajm.er Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sikar ese ?.. :) + &-A , y it, I $" @#%.<?-. *. 3 ----AppeIIa,nts/Defendants Versus

¶6

Smt ~alidevi W/o late Shri Ram Niwas

¶7

Miss Manju Devi aged about 7 years

¶8

Miss ishore aged about 5 years Both daughters of late Shris%am. N,iwas 4. Subhash aged about ..&. 3. d! :+.+>* es~~~~~.date :v +& .$c< Shri Ramniwas

¶9

Miss Munni, Aged ,a,bout:3'j@arSr D/b' late, Shri Ramniwas Respondents no. %to e5:;ar<rminors througvh their natural guardian mother ~Iiitf;ba;'li'~~,ev& W/o late Shri Ram Niwas r .* ' d 6. Smt. Ganga Devi bV~p;~Q,r~;Girdhari Lal - **_i_** . Gird ha ri La l S/o S h r>i$N:g(a ?& * *>: % im :Ra.m 711. Ganga Devi W/o late25j$8:;irdhari ,,2gs::)i+J 3 -.< . Lal (already on record as respondent no. &,p ~~~3Q,+$;+( ._ .

¶10

712. Jagdish Prasad S/o lijteilari tGirdhari Lal 713. Prabhu Dayal S/o la& shri.Girdhari Lal 714. Hira Devi D/o late SIjrTGirdhari Lal 715. Dina Kanwar D/o late:'?l?r^i .. F:.b.bv-.X$% Gi.rdhari Lal 716. Sharda D/o late $fi,ri;Gi,rahari Lal

¶11

All residents of .$$!a;rJ$h$il & Distt. Sikar , "' '? ';;$ "z- . -, , ,,.?, *@; a M.3, $"yL " '%$ *a .g. ----Respondents

¶12

Connected With S. B. Cros?i%bji@'ction (Civil) .No.8/2000 In S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 5412000

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Alok Garg, Advocate (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Adil, Advocate (through vc>

¶14

HOM'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judqmemt

¶15

This Civil Regular First Appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short, 'the defendants') under Section 96 CPC read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.11.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge No.2, Sikar (for short 'the trial Court') in Civil Suit (Fatal) No. 4711999 titled Mst. LaIi Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Ors., whereby the suit filed by the q< 'is,, i i . respondents-plaintifi,f~~~~~~~~o~*.sh!o~t .-$ '$he plaiitiffs') has been decreed *.and a sum of~~,~si..2,60,000/- has been awarded 6. c9, .. in their favour .+ *;' % ?" along wit$interest @ 5% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till ""$ . , -<:% **.LS9.** ">.%id its realisation. Respondents have also filed the cross objection for enhancing the amount of com.p:.nsation.

¶16

Since the ;app,eal b .% . &rd $cross o,bjection both have been -4, * ;; * ;$ .%" ? 9. a ;.;:$& :: filed against the same:-gudgitqsot ,j .:.and decree, they are being rr"I,%d;;5 , . *" **_Y-&;j,$<_** ?:+ decided together by thi$~,~dj~i@ep;~:j~Udment. ., * _@i_ **&jh"** >2p q ,, _rvt_ s,* . f *< .+- (:y$ws :a-j '2 $%,I j, Facts of the ca<~e grd@H'at **1** ;- + the plaintiffs filed a civil suit i **-i** %- against the defendants Detore the trial court under the Fatal **_b_** z* & ".* **_3_** Accidents Act, 1855 **~la~~i~d~~@;~~p~e~nsa~tjion** ..-%&ku-. , % ***...** on account of death of _832;_ % ;* **3** , > *,<; 2 g . .&., (- .. %;.. Ram Niwas, husband d;figlan:bff-rro:l,, ,. a fatffer of plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 and son of plaintiff nos. 6 & 7 ,who while coming as a pillion rider on the motor cycle of k$!Zll$a.r ;died o,n 30.06.1996 at 11.00 PM, d due to falling of electric wire between pole no.1 and 2 near Johda on account of sparking in a transformer near the water tank of PHED Deptt. in Village Kudan.

¶17

Necessary issues were framed. Evidence was led and after hearing both the parties, the trial court vide its judgment 27.11.1999 decreed the plaintiffs' suit and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/as compensation in their favour along with interest @ 5% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till its realization.

¶18

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that deceased Ram Niwas himself was negligent. Electricity wires were rightly stretched. The wire might have been broken down due to rain and storm and there was no fault of the defendants. The learned trial court has passed the judgment without due appreciation of the evidence available on record and thus committed material illegality.

¶19

On the other hand.? Ie"arned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that fipffthe % plaintiffs' evidence, it is evident that death of Ram N:\Y$ took piace due to negligence of the defendants. **t$y<m2_** From thekpost mortem report of deceased Ram Niwas also, it was established that cause of deL3th .of Ram Niwas is electric shock. After considering eac~:.and:e$e,~~~$spec.t _2_ , &. **_*e_** g-+.$sve,, **2;~** of the matter, the learned * '. ' . **_4sq3%_** _&:5>y3: &3:$i3+$&, trial court has rightlyiass&d$bh,ae&-mpugned S ,Ji2a33“py )- ,,,.., cd .,- judgment. Hence, no ar " gx. interference therewith is requfred bsy this Court.

¶20

Heard. Conside,~ed,

¶21

t" ; The sole questibn i%liicl4, arises,for determination I i$ 7 in this ,.) ." a 9 x~~~*$;%~f appeal is: i;$,J:;.$$ ,A- to v 'Wh.ether thq ud,&ent he< u , and decree passed by ' " ,%. y the trial ourt~~i,.~~ased -" on proper appreciation of ,<,d $6 a* - f %bp -M. ~RBA& evidence or noJ2 ,?,, $-%+ g*xQ48 <jrn & ; * 4 1

¶22

From the material on record, it is evident that the trial court has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and found that no evidence, documentary or oral, was produced by the defendants to the effect that electric wires fell down due to natural calamity. The trial court rightly assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 2000j- p.m. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased which was 30 years at the time of accident, the Trial

¶23

Court applied the multiplier of 14 and rightly awarded Rs. 2,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 5% p.a. as compensation.

¶24

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. The question is answered acc.ordingly.

¶25

For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil First Appeal filed by the defendants is liable tc be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. d bj dm a. .*- ;" &.

¶26

S.B. Cross 0bi&;tibnwl.~ivil) No. 8/2000 '&:" ''><& * ' ' consequent upon dismissal of the civil first appeal, this ,'

¶27

C * cross-objection dd not survive and the same also stands disposed of.

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Smt Lali Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Smt Lali Devi

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

A v v N L Vs Smt Gulabi and Ors.

Dr. (Smt.) Nikita, W/O Dr. Sanjeev Singh Choudhary D/O Shri Kashiram Chaudhary, Vs Dr. Sanjeev Singh Choudhary

Smt. Guddi Devi and Others Vs J v v N L and Others

Smt. Alka Sharma W/O Shri Sankalp Sharma D/O Shri Heeralal Sharma Vs Sanklap Sharma S/O Shri Ramkishore Sharma

Smt Sultan Bai Vs Dy. C M H O Kota

Ram Chandra Sharma Vs Prahlad Sharma