Appeal against compensation decree in fatal accident claim where child died due to electrocution; appeal dismissed due to lack of merit and failure of defendants to prove supervision.
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.
[2023/RJJP/009386]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 212/2017
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Bhati, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vidhut Gupta, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 08/05/2023
Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellantsdefendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar in Fatal Accident Claim No.15/2013 by which learned Judge has awarded Rs.4,25,000/- as a compensation with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the claim till payment.
[2023/RJJP/009386]
[CFA-212/2017]
(2 of 4)
Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs-respondents (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a Fatal Accident Claim for compensation of Rs.10 lacs due to death of their daughter Bharti on 27.07.2012 at about 3:00PM, when she went to Salwadi Jodi to search out a goat of her maternal uncle and came in contact with 11000 KV electric line installed on the electricity poles. Resultantly, she died on the spot due to electrocution. At the time of death, she was 9 years of age. On that basis FIR was lodged.
Defendants filed written statement to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein and also stated that deceased Bharti did not die due to electrocution. So, defendants were not responsible for the alleged incident. So, claim petition be dismissed.
Learned trial court framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties:-
(1) Whether on 26.07.2012 at about 3:00 PM near Salwadi Jodi Mahawa when the plaintiffs’ daughter Kumari Bharti was going to search a goat, she came in contact with 11000 KV electric wires installed on the electric poles due to rash, negligent and not taking care of them by the defendants. Resultantly, Kumari Bharti died due to electrocution?
(2) Whether plaintiffs were entitled to get Rs.10 lacs as a compensation from defendants jointly and severally?
(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed on the basis of averments made in the written statements and additional submissions?
(4) Relief?
[2023/RJJP/009386]
[CFA-212/2017]
(3 of 4)
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that plaintiffs had proved the issue Nos.1 and 2 in their favour. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that no information was given to the defendants for the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that defendants were maintaining, repairing, supervising and inspecting the wires time to time and they had adduced the evidence of DW1-Nirlesh Yadav and DW2Dilip Singh, but trial court had not considered the evidence of these witnesses in right perspective. So, judgment and finding of the trial court be set aside and appeal be allowed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that it is an admitted position that daughter of the plaintiffs Kumari Bharti died due to electrocution. Plaintiffs in their evidence exhibited the postmortem report of the deceased in which cause of death ‘electric current’ was mentioned. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that in his evidence DW2- Dilip Singh admitted the fact that he had not went at the spot to see the incident and he had not submitted any report before the trial court as to when he went for supervision of the electric line. So, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that Bharti died due to negligence of defendants. So, appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
It is an admitted position that Bharti died due to electric current. Evidence produced by the defendants was not inspiring
[2023/RJJP/009386]
[CFA-212/2017]
(4 of 4)
confidence. DW2-Dilip Singh admitted in his cross-examination that he had not gone on the spot and he had not submitted any report with regard to supervision of electric line. So, in my considered opinion, trial court has not committed any error in decreeing the plaintiffs’ suit. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /51
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Pappu Ram S/o Nau Ram
Smt. Rajpala W/o Pappu Ram
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
