Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 772
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Deepak Maheshwari, J.
Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ramzan S/o Sh. Shokat Ali Shah - Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 224 of 2015
Decided On : 27-02-2017
For the Respondent:Mr. Rakesh Chotia on behalf of Dr. Sachin Acharya, Advocates
Electricity suppliers are liable for damages caused by negligence in maintaining electric lines.
Headnote:
NEGLIGENCE - ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 - SECTION 161 - COMPENSATION - COURT AWARDED COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF CAMEL DUE TO ELECTROcution CAUSED BY FALL OF HIGH TENSION ELECTRIC WIRE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff's camel died and cart was destroyed due to electrocution caused by a fallen high tension electric wire. Plaintiff filed a suit for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the defendants in properly maintaining the electric lines. The court awarded compensation for the death of the camel, mental agony, and other expenses.
Issues: 1. Whether the incident occurred due to the negligence of the defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation? 3. Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants were negligent in maintaining the electric lines, which resulted in the death of the camel. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the loss of the camel, mental agony, and other expenses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The incident involved a high tension electric wire falling and causing electrocution, which resulted in the death of a camel and destruction of a cart (!) (!) .
-
The plaintiff, Ramzan, filed a suit claiming compensation for the loss, and the trial court awarded Rs. 50,000 for the camel, Rs. 5,000 for mental agony, Rs. 5,000 for other expenses, along with interest at 9% per annum (!) (!) .
-
The court found that the incident was due to negligence by the electric supply company in maintaining the electric lines, and this negligence was the primary cause of the accident (!) (!) .
-
The defense raised objections about the sufficiency of evidence, the absence of proper notice under relevant legal provisions, and the entitlement to ex-gratia compensation. However, the court found that notices had been received, and the incident was adequately established by evidence, including postmortem reports and witness testimony (!) (!) .
-
The court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing that the negligence of the electric department was proven and that the awarded compensation was justified and reasonable (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s judgment, and found no merit in the objections raised by the appellants regarding the evidence and legal procedures (!) (!) .
-
Overall, the judgment reinforced that electricity suppliers are liable for damages caused by negligence in maintaining electric lines, and the court's decision to award compensation was supported by the evidence and legal principles involved (!) (!) .
Deepak Maheshwari, J.
1. This Civil First Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9th January, 2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Churu camp Sardarsahar in Civil Original Suit No. 41/2013 (60/2012) whereby, the learned trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the plaintiff-respondent along with interest amount @ 9% per annum to be paid from the date of filing of the suit, i.e., 28th August, 2012 till realization of the amount.
2. No-one has come forward to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellants despite the name of Mr. K.V. Vyas is shown in the cause list as learned counsel for appellants.
3. In the memo of appeal, it has been averred that the judgment and decree impugned is based on no legal evidence. The substantial evidence has been altogether ignored by learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has failed to comply with the law applicable in regard to the suit for damages. Compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded in absence of any evidence to this effect. It has also been averred that the notice was required to be served under Section 161 of the Indian Electricity Act which has not been given in this case. The plaintiff/respondent was entitled for ex-gratia compensation only but this aspect has been ignored by the learned trial Court. In view of above, the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in law and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. In light of the aforesaid objections mentioned in the memo of appeal, the judgment and decree impugned was perused. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff was also heard.
5. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that at 9:30 a.m. on 21st January, 2012 when plaintiff - Ramzan was going to the agricultural fields of Abdul, an electric wire from the high tension line suddenly fell down on the camel cart of the plaintiff near Durbaliya Johda and on account of electrocution, the camel died and the cart was also burnt and destroyed. Information in this regard was sent to the Electric Department and Police Station. Postmortem of the camel was conducted by the Police. Thereafter, plaint has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for claiming compensation in the tune of Rs.1,06,500/-.
6. Learned trial court framed four issues on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties which are as follows:-
(i) Whether, on 21st January, 2012, an electric wire of high tension line fell down on the public way and on account of electrocution, camel of the plaintiff died and the camel cart was burnt and destroyed ?
….Plaintiff
(ii) Whether, plaintiff is entitled to realize Rs. 1,00,000/- or any other amount as compensation from the defendants ?
….Plaintiff
(iii) Whether, in light of the paras No. 12, 13 and 15 of the written statement, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter ?
…. Defendants
(iv) Relief ?
7. After concluding the trial and hearing both the sides, all the issues came to be decided in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and the learned trial Court awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the camel, Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for other expenses and Advocate's Fees. Amount of interest @ 9% per annum was also awarded in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.
8. On perusal of the judgment impugned, it is apparent that PW-1 Ramzan has reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint while confirming the accident caused due to fall of high tension electric wire on his camel cart. The camel got electrocution and died and the cart was destroyed being burnt. These facts have also been reiterated by PW-2 Abdul. Though DW-1 Hansraj Meena, Assistant Engineer has denied such incident to have taken place but in the statements recorded during his cross examination, he has showed his ignorance about the said incident and the information having not been received about it. He has also admitted that he was not posted at the concerned Offi
