The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability in cases of electrocution, holding the electricity department strictly and vicariously liable to compensate the victims.

JUDGMENT

Bansal, J. - This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20-2-2008 passed by the additional District Judge No.1, Sikar, in Suit No.156/2005 (Fatal accident Case), whereby and whereunder the suit claiming compensation has been decreed and allowed compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- to plaintiffs against the defendant aVVNL on account of death of Ramesh Kumar arya, plaintiffs's husband and father due to electrocution.

2. Respondents have filed an application for disbursement of compensation amount, however, the impugned award was passed on 20-2- 2008 and this first appeal is pending since 2009, with the consent of counsel for both parties, appeal itself has been heard finally on merits.

3. The facts of the case are that respondents plaintiffs (hereafter `the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit under Section 1(a) of the Fatal accident act, claiming compensation on account of accidental death of Ramesh Kumar arya, who died on 7-7-2004 because of electrocution, at 7.30 aM while he went to start boring machine installed at the well in his field he was touched with the wire used for electric pole, in which electric current was passing. Sustaining current Ramesh Kumar became unconscious and was thereafter taken to Government Hospital Palsana, but was declared dead. Since the plaintiff No.1 is a lady, plaintiff No.2 only major son and plaintiffs No.3&4 were minor daughters, they were shocked therefore FIR in this regard could not be lodged immediately, and when they tried to register the report regarding death of Ramesh Kumar, the Police Station Ranoli did not lodge the report. Therefore, complaint was filed before the court, which under Section 156(3) CrPC forwarded the same to Police Station. It was alleged that out of white insulators fixed on wires one insulator was broken due to which current was passing and many times it passed through wire used for the pole. It was stated that written complaints were made to the electricity department, but the same was not repaired. The deceased was 44 years at the time of incident and was well healthy person. It was claimed that the deceased was a well versed farmer, engaged in milk trade having ten buffaloes and owning Indica car, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. as such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.40,21,000/-.

4. On issuing notices appellants-defendants (hereafter `the defendants') filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and stated that there was no electric connection in the name of deceased Ramesh Kumar, but electric connection was in the name of Hanmana Ram as account No.2304/63. The wire used for the pole was at a safe distance from L-Bracket, as such there was no possibility of current. There was no complaint by deceased regarding electric current in the pole or its connected wire. It was stated that if somebody try to commit theft of electricity there was possibility of electric current. It was further stated that the deceased was residing in field itself having construed house and was using telephone, TV, Cooler, flour mill machine and other machines, but there was no electric connection in the name of deceased, as such there is possibility of electric current while he was trying to commit theft of electricity. The FIR was also lodged with great delay just to hide true facts and false allegations have been levelled against the department. as such no liability could be shifted upon defendants. It was prayed to dismiss the case of plaintiffs

5. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed five issues. Plaintiffs examined four witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. Defendants examined two witnesses. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties and decided issues No.1&4 conjointly holding that defendants failed to prove that deceased was using electricity unauthorisedly and that deceased died because of