Electricity suppliers are strictly liable for injuries resulting from their installations, irrespective of negligence, highlighting the burden of proof rests with them in cases of electrocution.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd. against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh (hereinafter be referred to as the "trial Court") in Special Civil Suit No. 62 of 2006, whereby the trial Court has partly allowed the said suit filed by the plaintiff and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,42,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% in favour of present respondents.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that on 31.10.2004, the son of the present respondents, namely Khimji Jetha Harijan, was returning from Nara Dam after taking a bath. Around 14:15 hrs, while passing near the Dam, he reached the vicinity of an electrical pole. At that time, he received a severe electric shock from the wires of the said pole, sustaining serious injuries. During the course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 02.11.2004 at G.K. Hospital, Bhuj.

2.1 Hence, the original plaintiffs-father and mother of the deceased had filed Special Civil Suit No. 62 of 2006 for damages, before the trial Court, Bhuj at Kachchh.

2.2 The original defendants were appeared through advocates and have submitted their written statement at Exh.18 objecting the suit of the plaintiffs. The trial Court framed issues in paragraph No.3 at Exh.19 which read as under:-

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover from the defendants the amount stated in paragraph 6 of the plaint along with interest at the rate of 24% thereon?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the reliefs as prayed for in the plaint?

3. Whether the defendants prove that, as stated in paragraph 4 of the reply, the plaintiff’s suit is barred by jurisdiction?

4. Whether the plaintiff’s suit is barred by limitation?

Whether the plaintiff’s suit is liable to be rejected for non-payment of proper court fees?

5.What order and decree?

2.3 After considering the facts of the case, the trial Court answered the issues in paragraph No.4 of the judgment and decree. The trial Court, after considering the oral as well documentary evidence, has partly allowed the suit and awarded the compensation as aforesaid.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants have preferred present appeal.

3. Heard Mr.Jeet J Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants. Though served, respondents have chosen not to appear before this Court.

4. Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel would submit that the trial Court has passed the judgment and decree against the provisions of law and evidence on record and committed an error of facts and law. He would submit that the trial Court has not considered the fact that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased and the onus of establishing the negligence is upon the plaintiffs. He would submit that trial Court has taken into consideration the income of deceased at Rs.3000/- per month which is on higher side. He would submit that the trial Court has awarded compensation contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the quantum of compensation is much higher than what actually could have been awarded. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted the trial court has materially erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and the findings recorded are contrary to the pleadings, evidence on record, and settled principles of law. He has also submitted that the plaintiffs before the trial Court have failed to disc