Remanded

Sita Devi v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Rajasthan HC9 May 2023CFA/360/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal and set aside the trial court's dismissal of the suit. Relying on Apex Court precedents regarding liability of electricity boards irrespective of negligence, the court remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; judgment and decree set aside; suit remanded to trial court for fresh decision within six months.

Sita Devi Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/009770]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 360/2002

¶4

Sita Devi, W/o Magha Ram, R/o Jevali Tahat, P.s. Nechhwa, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar

¶5

Magha Ram, S/o Bhura Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Jevali Tahat, P.s. Nechhwa, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Through Chairman, Jaipur

¶9

Junior Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Kachhwa Distt. Sikar

¶10

Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Rural, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar

¶11

Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Sikar

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Adv.
	assisted by Mr. Aman Bohra, Adv.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶15

Judgment

¶16

DATE OF JUDGMENT 09/05/2023

¶17

The instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs appellants(for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Sikar (for short “the trial court”) in Suit No.86/99 (B.T. No.39/99) Fatal, titled as “Sita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ajmer Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.”, whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

[2023/RJJP/009770]

[CFA-360/2002]

(2 of 3)

The trial court on the basis of the pleading of the parties, framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

¶22

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial Court wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. He further submitted that it is a settled proposition of Law that the Electricity Board is liable to pay compensation, even though there was no negligence on its part. So, order of the trial Court may be setaside.

¶23

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others Vs. Smt. Sumitra and Others in S. B. Civil First Appeal No.158/2011 decided on 12.04.2022;(2) M. P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari reported in 2002(2) SCC 162;(3) Raman Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others reported in 2015 ACJ 484; (4) Rajasthan Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ramwati & Ors. reported in 2022(3) DNJ 1030; (5) Kumari Kani Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur & Ors. reported in 2016(1) WLC (Raj.) (UC) 589.

¶24

Learned senior counsel for the defendants-respondents (for short “the defendants”) has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for re-adjudication afresh.

¶25

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned senior counsel for the defendants.

[2023/RJJP/009770]

[CFA-360/2002]

(3 of 3)

It is an admitted position that the trial Court has not found negligence on the part of the respondents but the Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding the case of M. P. Electricity Board (Supra) mentioned that Electricity Board is liable to pay compensation, even though there was no negligence on its part. So, in my considered opinion, the matter is required to be remanded back to the trial Court to decide the suit afresh, as per latest Law.

¶30

Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 01.08.2002 is set-aside. The trial court is directed to decide the suit afresh within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after hearing both the parties.

¶31

Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 25.05.2023.

¶32

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶33

Gourav/94

Sita Devi v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Devi v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Lal Bairwa Vs State

Hanifa Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Chopra Gwar Gam Industries Vs Radhey Shyam Gupta

Prem and Ors. Vs Smt Parwati Devi and Ors.

Smt. Gangadei Daughter of Kalyan, Vs Smt. Kamlesh Wife of Bhanwarlal

Manish Saini S/O Harilal Saini Vs Noormohammad S/O Sufedsa Khan