Dismissed

Chairman, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Smt. Santra W/O Ram Narayan

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2024CFA/340/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against compensation awarded under the Fatal Accidents Act for electrocution of two brothers who came in contact with hanging 11 KV wires. The High Court found no perversity in the trial court's finding of negligent line maintenance or the quantum, and dismissed both appeals.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chairman, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:26588]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 340/2007

¶4

Chairman, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jyoti Nagar Jaipur 2. Asstt. Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Baran Rural, District Baran (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Santra W/o Ram Narayan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kotadi Sunda, Tehsil And District Baran (Rajasthan)

¶8

Naresh Daughter, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Dependents Of Late Ram Narayan, R/o Kotadi Sunda, Tehsil And District Baran (Rajasthan)

¶9

Chandresh, Daughter, Aged About 6 Years, Minor, Dependent Of Late Ram Narayan, R/o Kotadi Sunda, Tehsil And District Baran (Rajasthan)

¶10

Hamesh , Son, Aged About 4 Years, Minor, Dependents Of Late Ram Narayan, R/o Kotadi Sunda, Tehsil And District Baran (Rajasthan)

¶11

Smt. Gota Bai W/o Chottelal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Kotadi Sunda, Tehsil And District Baran (Rajasthan)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

with

¶14

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 339/2007

¶15

Chairman, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

¶16

Asst. Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Baran, Rural, District Baran (Rajasthan)

¶17

-----Appellants

¶18

Versus

¶19

Smt. Goga Bai W/o Chhotte Lal aged about 45 years, R/o Kotadi Sunda, Teshil and District Baran (Rajasthan)

¶20

-----Respondent

¶21

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal

[2024:RJ-JP:26588]

[CFA-340/2007]

(2 of 4)

Ms. Rajbala Ms. Vijay Laxmi Gautam

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶27

Judgment / Order

¶28

04/01/2024

¶29

Both these appeals were filed aggrieved from order and judgment dated 31.08.2005 in civil suit No. 71/2004 and 70/2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Baran wherein, separate claim petition(s) under Section 1-A of Fatal Accident Act were filed to claim compensation on death of Ram Narayan & Kanhaiya Lal.

¶30

Learned Trial had awarded a compensation of ₹276800/- in suit No. 71/2004 and ₹137000/- in suit No. 70/2004 with interest of 6% respectively. The appellants-defendants had challenged judgment in both the civil suits.

¶31

As separate judgments were passed, in a cause of action arises from same incident therefore these appeals are clubbed together and we are deciding both the appeals with common order.

¶32

Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Trial Court without appreciating the evidence and circumstances of the case has passed the judgment in favor of respondent-plaintiff. He also submitted that no negligence of appellant was ever established before the Trial Court and the plaintiffs were failed in establishing that there were hanging wires and the deceased came in contact with these hanging wires. He also submitted that the Trial Court has passed the award on higher side.

¶33

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent-claimants on the ground that from the evidence on

[2024:RJ-JP:26588]

[CFA-340/2007]

(3 of 4)

record the claim was well-established and moreover the claim petitions were filed on death of two brothers, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error. He also submitted that appellants have failed to point out infirmities and illegalities in the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

¶39

The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that in the night of 20.08.2003 when Ram Narayan and his brother Kanhaiya Lal went to guard the field then they came in contact with hanging wires of 11000 K.V. Line which were hanged 4-5 feet above the earth. As a result of electrocution both sustained injuries and succumbed. After police report, post mortem of both dead bodies was conducted.

¶40

A claim petition No. 71/2004 was filed by wife, three minor children and mother of Ram Narayan whereas claim petition No. 70/2004 was filed by mother of Kanhaiya Lal.

¶41

The defendants have filed written statement denying the facts narrated by the plaintiff and further claimed that both the brothers were trying to get illegal connection through jumper which resulted into electrocution. Therefore, the defendants are not liable for the mischief due to negligence of deceased. The Trial court had framed 7 issues. Two witnesses were examined by the plaintiff and 2 by the defendants, these both the parties had produced the evidence.

¶42

We have considered issue No.1 in both the civil suit. A perusal of discussions by the Trial Court indicate that that the wires were hanging at the chest size when both the deceased

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:26588]

[CFA-340/2007]

came in contact with the wire, There was no evidence to the contrary on record and the Trial Court after considering the material on record has concluded that it was due to negligence in maintenance of electricity line.

¶47

We do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Therefore, the accident was a result of negligence adopted by the appellant-defenant.

¶48

As regards to compensation is concerned no documents were produced by the respondent-plaintiff but a fact is quite clear that Ram Narayan left behind his adult wife and three minor children with a mother whereas Kanhaiya Lal left behind her mother. 13. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record and also the legal provisions came to conclusion that claimants are entitled to receive a sum of ₹276800/- on death of Ram Narayan and ₹137000/- on death of Kanhaiya Lal.

¶49

We do not find any perversity or illegality in the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court, therefore the claim is just and reasonable as placed before learned Trial Court. Thus, the judgment of Trial Court is well-reasoned and there is no infirmity and also there is no ground for interference.

¶50

As a result of discussion made hereinabove, the civil appeal no 340/2007 and 339/2007 are hereby dismissed with all pending application(s), if any.

¶51

No order as to costs.

¶52

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶53

MONU /01 & 196

Chairman, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Smt. Santra W/O Ram Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chairman, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Smt. Santra W/O Ram Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Garg S/O Shri Murarilal Vs Mahendra Kumar Agarwal S/O Shri Kishan Lal

Smt Shanti Devi and Ors. Vs Radhey Shyam and Ors.

Mehant Vijay Shankar Vs State/Distt Collector Jaipur and Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Ambika Choudhary and Another Vs Abdul Rauf

Kishori Devi and Anr. Vs J v v N L and Ors.