An electricity supply company is liable for the death of a person caused by electrocution due to the negligence of the company in maintaining its overhead lines.

( 1 ) SH. Asa Ram and another, by this suit, against the M. C. D. and others, have sought recovery of Rs. 4 lacs as damages on account of the death of their son Karan Singh, which according to them was caused due to rash and negligent act of defendants.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this suit are that in the beginning of July,1985, a loose earth wire separated from the main electric wire crossing the house of the plaintiffs and protruded across the staircase of the house of the plaintiffs. The said wire was naked and uninsulated. It was carrying high electric current. Plaintiffs had been lodging complaints to defendant No. 2, i. e. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (in short the DESU) regarding defective supply and of hanging loose wire on their house. About defective lines complaint was lodged as far back as in July, 1982, but no action was taken by the defendants except a casual visit by its junior staff. Pole No. 38 installed by the defendant was the electric pole supplying electricity connection to the house of the plaintiffs. In July, 1985 when the earth wires separated and became naked and uninsulated carrying high voltage current plaintiff No. 1 lodged a complaint in the DESU Office at Ujawa on 6th July, 1985 but no action was taken on the same. On the fateful day i. e. 4. 8. 85 Karan Singh deceased was on the ground floor talking to the plaintiff No. 1. Since the plaintiff No. 2 was on the first floor, therefore, the deceased was going to meet plaintiff No. 2 on the first floor. While he was climbing the stairs he came in contact with the said loose naked wire and was thus electrocuted. This incident was witnessed by neighbours of the plaintiffs. They saw the deceased collapsing after coming in contact with uninsulated wire hanging on the staircase of the plaintiffs. Postmortem on the deceased was conducted and it opined that his death was due to electrocution. After this accident, on 6th August, 1985 defendants surpituously removed the hanging wire. Death of Karan Singh was due to the negligence of DESU, its agents and employees. In fact because of this uninsulated naked wire having current running through their house that deceased came in contact with the same. Notice under Section 478 of M. C. D Act was served but defendants failed to compensate the plaintiffs, hence this suit.

( 3 ) WRITTEN statement was filed on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 only. It has been averred that there was no negligence on the part of the DESU or its employees or agents. The death was caused because there was no electricity in the premises of the plaintiffs, therefore, the deceased tried to fiddle with the electric mains with the help of bamboo stick. Since it was a rainy season, the bamboo stick may not have been dry, fiddling with the electric mains caused electrocution. That was the probable cause of his death. There was neither any naked nor uninsulated wire hanging on the staircase of the plaintiffs house. The cause of death of deceased Karan Singh was due to his illegal and unlawful fiddling with DESU mains.

( 4 ) REPLICATION was filed in which it was specifically denied that the deceased Karan Singh fiddled with the DESU mains with a bamboo stick or that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants. 443

( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:- 1. Whether death of the accused was caused due to the rash and negligent act on the part of defendants 2 and 4? OPP 2. Whether DESU is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the death of the deceased? 3. Relief.

( 6 ) I have heard Ms. Pinki Anand for the plaintiffs and Mr. Jayant Nath for the defendants and also perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and the submissions made by Counsel at the Bar. After considering all the facts my decision on the above said issues are as under. Issue No. 1

( 7 ) THE burden of this issue was on the plaintiffs. To my mind, they have successfully discharged the same. Plaintiff No. I appearing as