IMPORTANT POINT
The Fatal Accidents Act allows claims for injuries, not just death, and appeals can be filed under the CPC where the Act does not provide a remedy.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.

1. In the present case, the applicants/defendants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Mungeli (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.2B/2019 dated 11.12.2023 whereby the civil suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was allowed and compensation of Rs.17,51,319/- was awarded in favour of the plaintiff.

2. In the present case, notices were issued to the plaintiff and defendant No. 3. The counsel appearing for the plaintiff raised an objection to the effect that the civil revision against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Mungeli (C.G.) in a regular civil revision is not maintainable and an appeal would lie according to the provisions of Section 96 read with Order 41 of CPC.

3. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court inter alia on the ground that on 25.07.2017 at about 12 at noon when the plaintiff was carrying water, she came in contact with 11KV wire hanging there and sustained grievous injuries on account of electrocution. It is further pleaded that she was taken to the Government hospital from where she was referred to Mahadev Hospital and thereafter to BTRC Hospital. The treating doctors amputated her left hand. It is pleaded that due to the negligent act of the Electricity Department i.e. defendants No. 1 & 2, she lost her left hand and thus, she claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-with interest @ 18% per annum.

4. Defendants No. 1 & 2 filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was stated that the plaintiff was provided free treatment under the Chief Minister Health Insurance Scheme and she herself was negligent. It is also stated that she did not approach the authorities to get the ex-gratia amount. Learned Trial Court framed issues with regard to negligence and quantum of compensation. The parties led evidence and judgment was passed on 11.12.2023 whereby defendants No. 1 & 2 were held liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.17,51,319/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit i.e. on 24.04.2019.

5. Defendants No.1 & 2 have preferred this civil revision challenging therein the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

6. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for defendants No.1 & 2 argued that where the statute does not provide any provision for filing an appeal, in such a situation, no appeal can be filed taking resort to general principles. He further submitted that when no appeal lies in the absence of any statutory provision then the remedy would be revision under Section 115 of the CPC. He also submitted that in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (for short ‘the Act of 1855’), there is no provision for appeal or revision. It is argued that the Act of 1855 provides for compensation to the families for loss occasioned by the death of a person and present is a case of injury (amputation of left hand) therefore, the civil suit was not maintainable and therefore, the appeal is also not filed challenging the judgment and decree. He further argued that according to the provisions of the Act of 1855, it is apparent that the Act of 1855 only covers death cases and there is no scope of compensation for injuries, thus the representatives of the deceased can maintain a claim under the Act of 1855. He also argued that the civil suit is maintainable against such judgment and decree. He further contended that according to the provisions of Section 96 of the CPC, an appeal would lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction. He also contended that the Act of 1855 is a special Act and the concerned Court does not exercise original jurisdiction, therefore, no appeal would lie.

7. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National In