Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. The present Second Appeal is filed by the Appellants/Original Defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2016 by the learned Additional District Judge, Surandranagar dated 7.5.2016 confirming the impugned judgment and order in Regular Civil Suit No. 140 of 2014 [Old Special Civil Suit No. 15 of 2010] by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Surendranagar dated 18.4.2015 posing the substantial question of law as follows:

"1. Whether both the courts below erred in not considering statutory provisions in regard to the liability of the accident?

2. Whether both the courts below erred in not appreciating the provisions of the Electricity Act and provisions of Supply Code?

3. Whether both the courts below were justified in not considering at all documentary evidence produced at Exh. 35?"

2. The background of the facts as discussed and narrated in the judgment of both the courts briefly summarized are that the wife of Original Plaintiff No. 1 and the mother of the Original Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 deceased Chandrikaben died on 29.11.2006 when she was spreading the clothes at her house on a wire due to electrocution. The house of the Plaintiff is situated in Mafatia Para. The deceased after washing the clothes was spreading it on a wire which was tied with one angle. However, with the iron angle there was one pipe fitted from which the wire of the Appellant was passing to the meter, and therefore, when she tried to spread the wet clothes, the current passed and the deceased died on the spot due to electrocution. Therefore, the suit came to be filed by the Respondents/Original Plaintiffs, which was allowed after examining the material and evidence on record. The first appellate court also confirmed the judgment and therefore the present Second Appeal is filed by the Appellants/Original Defendants - Electric Company posing the question of law as stated above.

3. Learned Advocate Shri S.P. Hasurkar for the Appellants referred to the R&P and both the judgments. Learned Advocate Shri S.P. Hasurkar pointedly referred to paragraph 10 and 11 of the judgment of the lower appellate court to support his contention that there was a electric pole where the wire was passing to the main service wire which was fitted with the angle and as the pipe was fitted with the angle, the clothes could not have been spread on a wire fitted with the angle. He submitted that the wire for spreading the clothes could not have been connected with the angle which was near to the pipe through which the wire was passing to the meter. Learned Advocate Shri S.P. Hasurkar therefore tried to submit that it was her own negligence. Learned Advocate Shri S.P. Hasurkar referred to the Exh. 35 to support his contention on the aspect of negligence and submitted that both the courts have not considered the same. Learned Advocate Shri S.P. Hasurkar submitted that the pipe from which the wire is passing, they are not required to touch the same and if the angle, which is fitted for such pipe, should have been left and should not have been used for any other purpose. Learned Advocate Shri Hasurker submitted that if any such wire is joined resulting in accident, the Appellants cannot be held liable for any negligence. He submitted that both the courts below have failed to consider the aspect of negligence and the liability of the Appellants. He therefore submitted that there are rules and regulations for the supply like Supply Code and the statutory provisions are required to be followed, and if, there is any breach committed by the consumer, it would be at his own peril.

4. Learned Advocate Shri Prakash H. Upadhyay for the Respondents/Original Plaintiffs referred to Exh. 5, the report of the committee, the report and the material and evidence relied upon by him. Learned Advocate Shri Upadhyay submitted that the consumer like the Respondents/Original Plaintiffs