Dismissed

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, v. Smt. Tija Devi W/O Shri Ram Lal

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2024CFA/859/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-appeals over a civil suit decreeing compensation against JVVNL and Nagar Nigam for death of a man by electrocution from a street electric pole. The High Court held the electricity supply agency liable under strict liability principles and dismissed all appeals, affirming the award.

What did the court decide?

All three first appeals dismissed; judgment and award dated 21.09.2011 of Rs.1,94,000 affirmed.

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vs Smt. Tija… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 859/2011

¶4

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Chairman R.r.v.v.n Ltd Jyoti Nagar Jaipur.

¶5

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Assistant Engineer, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶6

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Junior Engineer, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Tija Devi W/o Shri Ram Lal, Resident Of Plot No. 1494, R-13 Sanjay Nagar, Kachi Basti, Opposite Church, Jaipur Permanent Address Junavadej, Rampair Ka Tekra, Santoshdas Ki Colony (Charli), Ahmedabad.

¶10

Ravi Ram Pal S/o Shri Ram Pal, Resident Of Plot No. 1494, R-13 Sanjay Nagar, Kachi Basti, Opposite Church, Jaipur Permanent Address Junavadej, Rampair Ka Tekra, Santoshdas Ki Colony (Charli), Ahmedabad.

¶11

Nagar Nigam, Through Commissioner, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Deendayal Upadhyay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1/2012

¶15

Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Through Its Commissioner, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶16

----Appellant

¶17

Versus

¶18

Smt. Teeja Devi W/o Rampal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. 1494 R-13, Sanjay Nagar Kacchi Basti, Infront Of Charch, Jaipur Permanently R/o Junawadej, Rampeer Ka Tekra, Santosh Das Ki Colony, (Charli) Ahamedabad (Gujrat)

¶19

Ravi S/o Rampal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Plot No. 1494 R-13, Sanjay Nagar Kacchi Basti, Infront Of Charch, Jaipur Permanently R/o Junawadej, Rampeer Ka Tekra, Santosh Das Ki Colony, (Charli) Ahamedabad (Gujrat)

¶20

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its

(2 of 12)

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

[CFA-859/2011]

Chairman/managing Director, Rajasthan Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶25

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Assistant Engineer, Chitrakoot Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur

¶26

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Junior Engineer, Chitrakoot Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 116/2012

¶29

Smt Teeja Devi W/o Late Shri Rampal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Plot No. 1494 R-13, Sanjay Nagar, Kacchi Basti, Opposite Church, Jaipur, Permanent R/o Junavadej, Rampeer Ka Tekra, Santoshdas Ki Colony, (Charli), Ahamdabad (Gujrat)

¶30

Ravi Rampal S/o Late Shri Rampal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. 1494 R-13, Sanjay Nagar, Kacchi Basti, Opposite Church, Jaipur, Permanent R/o Junavadej, Rampeer Ka Tekra, Santoshdas Ki Colony, (Charli), Ahamdabad (Gujrat)

¶31

----Appellants

¶32

Versus

¶33

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Chairman / Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

¶34

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Assistant Engineer, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur

¶35

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Junior Engineer, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur

¶36

Nagar Nigam, Through Commissioner Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Jaipur

¶37

----Respondents

¶38

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Gajraj Singh Rajawat for Mr. G.S. Rathore for JVVNL
	Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma for Nagar
	Nigam Mr. Parth Sharma and Mr. Saurabh Jain for
	Mr. Sudhir Jain for claimants
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. GajrajSingh Rajawat for

(3 of 12)

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

[CFA-859/2011]

Mr. G.S. Rathore for JVVNL Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma for Nagar Nigam Mr. Parth Sharma and Mr. Saurabh Jain for Mr. Sudhir Jain for claimants

¶43

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶44

Order

¶45

08/04/2024

¶46

All three appeals were preferred aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 21.09.2011 in civil suit No. 24/2008 (1844/2008) passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur Metro whereby in a civil suit filed by Teja Devi and Ravi Rampal for compensation on death of their unmarried son Raju Verma due to short circuit (electrocution) on 20.04.2008 was decreed against the appellants Jaipur Vidhyut Vitraran Ltd. (hereinafter for short “JVVNL”) and Nagar Nigam in following manner:

¶47

“vr% oknhx.k dk okn fo:) izfroknhx.k ckcr~ {kfriwfrZ jkf”k vkaf”kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj fMØh fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh;k la[;k&1 Jherh rhtknsoh mDr dqy {kfriwfrZ jkf”k 1]94]000@& Þv{kjs ,d yk[k pkSjkuos gtkjß izfroknh la[;k&1 ls 3 ds foHkkx t;iqj fo|qr forj.k fuxe fyfeVsM ,oa izfroknh la[;k&4 uxjfuxe t;iqj ls la;qDrr% izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gksxhA mDr {kfriwrZ jkf”k izkIr djus gsrq okfn;k la[;k&1 dks vfrfjDr U;k;”kqYd vnk djuk gksxkA okn O;; mHk; i{k viuk&viuk Lo;a ogu djsaxsA fu;kekuqlkj fMØh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA”

¶48

Aggrieved from aforesaid, JVVNL and Nagar Nigam have filed appeals Nos. 859/2011 and 01/2012 to challenge the very basis of judgment dated 21.09.2011 whereas claimants had filed the

(4 of 12)

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

[CFA-859/2011]

appeal No. 116/2012 for enhancement of compensation granted by the trial court under the Fatal Accident Act.

¶53

Learned counsel for appellants JVVNL submitted that as per the facts of the matter, the accident was result of alleged short circuit in electric pole fixed at Pratap Garden and this garden was not maintained by JVVNL. He further submitted that the pole upon which the electric short circuit allegedly happened was maintained by Jaipur Nagar Nigam wherein sodium light was installed and mainatained by Nagar Nigam. He would further submitted that trial court had not considered the defence raised by the appellant JVVNL and without considering the defence of present appellant a joint liability was fastened upon JVVNL therefore the judgment of trial court is bad in eye of law.

¶54

Learned counsel for Jaipur Nagar Nigam while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that the Municipal Corporation is only responsible for maintaining street lights and electricity light. He further submitted that the incident of electrocution is reported in the matter was absolutely false and the negligence of appellant Jaipur Nagar Nigam was not established. He also submitted that the evidence required to establish the case of plaintiff was not produced by the plaintiff therefore the trial court has committed serious error and illegality. He also submitted that the principle of strict liability is not applicable in the matter therefore the trial court has committed grave error while fastening the liability upon present appellant Jaipur Nagar Nigam. He also raised the basis of

(5 of 12)

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

[CFA-859/2011]

compensation and submitted that the income of deceased was neither established nor proved from the evidence and the trial court has measurably failed to consider the negligence of the deceased and the award of compensation is on higher side. He also submitted that the appellant is not entitled to claim compensation more than prevalent on date of incident, not when the appeal was heard and decided.

¶59

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for claimants plaintiffs Teja Devi and others on the ground that the pole fixed near garden was incidentally touched by the deceased and as a result of which he received shock and electrocuted and expired on spot therefore looking to principle of strict liability the defendants are jointly and severally liable for death due to negligence in maintaining electric pole. He also submitted that the trial court has not considered the issue of just compensation in the matter therefore the plaintiffs are entitled for enhancement of award. He specifically referred the fact that deceased Raju was earning Rs.6000/- per month and trial court had calculated only Rs.3000/- per month. He further submitted that deceased was not spending the deducted amount as assumed by the trial court and the compensation is required to be enhanced.

¶60

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(6 of 12)

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

[CFA-859/2011]

In nutshell the facts of the matter are that plaintiff Teja and Ravi had filed a suit on 08.07.2008 narrating that due to negligence in maintenance of electric poles on streets by the defendants, son of plaintiff No.1 Teja Devi and brother of plaintiff No.2 Ravi Verma got electrocuted when he touched the pole on 20.04.2008 and on death, a compensation of Rs.51,85,000/- was claimed from defendants under Section 26, Order VII Rule 1 and 2 CPC and Section 1A and 2 of Fatal Accident Act 1855. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had filed written statement wherein they denied the allegations made in the plaint and further asserted that for the death of Ravi Verma the defendants are not liable to pay compensation as their act of negligence was not established. JVVNL also filed a written statement denying the entire fact and also allegation of negligence in maintenance.

¶65

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

¶66

1- vk;k okn & 4 d ds pj.k la- 3 ds o.kkZuqlkj 20&04&08 ds le; 4-30 ij izrki xkMZu ds ckgj ljdkjh fctyh dh ykbu ls “kkWVZ lfdZV gksus ds dkj.k jktwoekZ dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZA

¶67

oknh

¶68

2- vk;k izfrokn & 4 d ds pj.k la- 6 ¼6½ ds o.kkZuqlkj oknh }kjk of.kZr eqvkot+k jkf”k fof/klEer ugha gSA

¶69

izfroknh

¶70

3- vk;k oknh dks izfroknh ds fo:) dksbZ okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gqvk gSA

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

[CFA-859/2011]

(7 of 12)

izfroknh

4- vuqrks’k

Two witnesses PW-1 (Teeja Bai) and PW-2 (Jeetu) were examined by the plaintiffs. Further 11 documents were exhibited in affidavit of PW-1. In rebuttal on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 3, DW-1 (Satish Kumar Sharma) was examined and on behalf of JVVNL DW-2 (A.K. Singhal) was examined. Learned trial court after considering the evidence on record has decided issue No.1 in favour of plaintiff but decided issue No.2 partially in favour of plaintiff and issue No.3 against the defendants. Further issue No.4 considering the provision under Section 163A of MV Act awarded compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- in favour of plaintiffs.

¶77

Since issue Nos. 1 to 3 are connected with each other therefore we are deciding these issues all together.

¶78

Issue No.1 and 3

¶79

The claim was filed by the mother and brother of deceased and perusal of statement of PW-1 indicated that Teeja Bai was not an eye witness and she did not witnessed the incident. According to PW-1, Jeetu was standing near garden and he was also close relative of deceased and both the plaintiffs were examined. According to PW-2 due to negligence in maintaining electricity wire, same was howing to the pole and same resulted into electrocution of deceased. The admission of PW-2 shows that he is not an eye witness and when deceased came to the place of incident then at that time PW-2 was working in the garden and

(8 of 12)

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

[CFA-859/2011]

after noise he came to the spot. He also depose that electricity pole was of electricity department.

¶84

DW-1 Satish Kumar stated that it was possible that deceased had touched switch or wire though in cross he admitted that he has not filed any report in the record pertaining to electrocution accident on 20.04.2008. Similarly DW-2 deposed that liability is upon JVVNL, as poles belongs to them.

¶85

Herein it is a case under civil law wherein principle of strict liability is not applicable in reading evidence rather the preponderance of probability is adopted while evaluating the evidence.

¶86

Herein on the basis of evidence a fact is quite clear that both the parties have failed to produce evidence available on record. No eye witness was produced by the plaintiff before the trial court and the trial court has not considered the admission of PW-2 wherein he clearly admitted that after hearing noise he rushed to the spot. Herein the claim of interference with electric pole in the system by DW-1 was not established from any of documents or evidence.

¶87

The electricity supply is monopoly of JVVNL, whereas upkeeping and maintenance of street lights and light poles is responsibility of JVVNL. One application of principle of strict liability to fastened the liability means that the liability is without

(9 of 12)

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

[CFA-859/2011]

any fault which also means that the act of defendant was without any intention or knowledge even then they are liable. In case of absolute liability the principle underlying to enjoy their own property in any manner so that it many not injure other person.

¶92

In this case from the material available on record a fact is quite clear that the death of Ravi Verma was result of electrocution. The defendants had never raised any issue that the death was not as a result of electrocution. In case of electrocution like in instant case no evidence is available about the person who first spotted the deceased at the time of the incident. The evidence of PW-2 clearly indicated that after hearing noise when he reached at the spot he found that the deceased was lying near electricity pole and according to him the death was a result of electrocution. Thus, the deposition of PW-2 indicate that he reached at the spot soon after the accident.

¶93

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others 2000 (4) SCC 543 and Parvathi vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors. 1995(3)ALD654 held that once the fact of death by electrocution while working on road is established, authority concerned must be held to be negligent thus responsible for death. In case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs Shail Kumari And Ors. AIR 2002 SC 551, it was held that if live wire fell on public road resulted in electrocution the liability was fastened on the basis of strict liability.

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

[CFA-859/2011]

(10 of 12)

Having considered the aforesaid, fact is quite clear that in the matter that the death of Ravi Verma was result of electrocution and it was on public place not in any private place and just after the incident, PW-2 reached to the spot, therefore considering aforesaid principle of law as settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court we can presume that the death of Ravi Verma was result of electrocution. A sequence of event and evidence also make it clear that agency responsible for supplying electricity and maintenance are liable for death due to electrocution.

¶98

The defence of defendants appellant in appeal No. 859/2011 and 01/2012 is not established from the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 rather these two appeals are just shifting the liability from one to another. The trial court has considered the defence of the defendants and we have gone through the testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 but same is not sufficient to discharge liability of defendants.

¶99

In view of material available on record, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and issue No.3 against the defendants.

¶100

Issue Nos. 2 and 4

¶101

Learned trial court after considering the material on record concluded that the deceased was working as a waiter and he was

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

[CFA-859/2011]

(11 of 12)

engaged in work during marriage season. The evidence on record clearly indicated that PW-1 (mother of deceased) had not filed any document relating to income of deceased. Learned trial court considering the fact that deceased was unmarried and earning income as catering labourer (waiter) and that too on irregular basis which means that deceased was working in unorganized sector having no permanent income. Moreover the age of the deceased was 35 years. No other document was filed on record to contradict this claim. The fact is also available on record that the claimants are mother and brother of deceased and PW-1 also had a son, arrayed as claimant. Considering aforesaid, learned trial court on multiplier of 16 has assessed Rs.12,000/- as loss of dependency.

¶106

Learned counsel for claimants submitted that the award is on lower side and we also agree that the award is on lower side but considering the fact that no evidence is available on record to consider the enhancement therefore I am of the view that the trial court has not committed any error, in accessing the compensation prevalent at the time of disposal of claim petition.

¶107

In view of aforesaid, issue Nos. 2 and 4 are disposed of accordingly.

¶108

In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of considered view that the trial court has not committed any error while allowing claim petition therefore these appeals are liable to be dismissed.

[2024:RJ-JP:18610]

[CFA-859/2011]

(12 of 12)

As a result, appeals preferred aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 21.09.2011 in civil suit No. 24/2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur Metro are hereby dismissed and award dated 21.09.2011 is hereby affirmed.

¶113

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶114

Decree be drawn accordingly.

¶115

No order as to cost.

¶116

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶117

PREETI VALECHA /525-527

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, v. Smt. Tija Devi W/O Shri Ram Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, v. Smt. Tija Devi W/O Shri Ram Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deenu and Ors. Vs Bhakhlawar Singh and Ors.

Mohammad Irshad and Ors. Vs Satya Prakash and Anr.

Shri Gopal Krishan Dolya Son of Dwarka Prasad Dolya, Vs Pushkar Narayan Dharmawat Son of Surajmal Dharmawat, (Deceased through Its Legal Heirs)

M/S Modern Machinery Stores Vs Sampatti W/O Shri Hermat

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Jagdish Prasad Agrawal

Devraj Singh Son of Late Shri Rajendra Singh, Vs Yashwant Kumari D/O Shri Takhat Singh