Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sudesh Bansal, J.
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sumitra Devi & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 158 of 2011
Decided On : 12-04-2022
Indian Fatal accidents act - Compensation - Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 - 29, 77(3)
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit claiming compensation for the accidental death of their son due to electrocution. The trial court found that the deceased died due to negligence on the part of the electricity department in maintaining the electric line, and awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000 to the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died due to electrocution caused by the negligence of the electricity department. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to award compensation of Rs.3,00,000 to the plaintiffs.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the deceased's death, negligence on the part of the electricity department, and the assessment of the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of strict liability, holding the electricity department absolutely liable to compensate the plaintiffs. It also considered the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, particularly rules 29 and 77(3), which provide for general safety requirements for electric supply lines and apparatus.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the first appeal filed by the defendants and upheld the trial court's judgment. It also directed the disbursement of the remaining damages amount to the plaintiffs.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a claim for compensation due to the death of a young man caused by electrocution from a high-voltage electric line passing through agricultural land (!) (!) .
The electric lines were found to be hanging very low, at approximately 8 feet, which was below the required safety height of 20 feet, and were loose and poorly maintained (!) (!) .
The evidence established that the deceased was working in his fields and came into contact with the low-hanging, faulty electric line, resulting in his electrocution and death (!) (!) .
The court found that the electricity department was negligent in maintaining the electric lines at the proper height and ensuring their safety, which directly contributed to the accident (!) (!) .
The principle of strict liability applies to the electricity department in this context, making it absolutely liable to compensate victims for injuries caused by unsafe electric lines, regardless of negligence (!) (!) (!) .
The court upheld the original award of Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation, considering the deceased's income, his age, and the nature of the accident, although it acknowledged that the amount was on the lower side (!) (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant electricity department, confirming that the evidence supported their negligence and liability (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the defendant was responsible for following safety regulations and maintaining the electric lines at the prescribed height to prevent such accidents (!) (!) .
The remaining awarded damages, which were deposited in a fixed deposit, are to be disbursed to the plaintiffs as per the court's order (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment confirms that the electricity department's failure to maintain the electric lines at the appropriate safety standards led to the tragic death, and they are liable for compensation under the principles of strict liability.
JUDGMENT
Sudesh Bansal, J. - This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27-11-2010 passed by the additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu, in Suit No.105/2008, whereby and whereunder decreeing the suit claiming compensation under the Indian Fatal accidents act, 1855 allowed compensation Rs.3,00,000/- to plaintiffs against the appellant aVVNL on account of death of their son due to electrocution.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent plaintiffs (hereafter `the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit claiming compensation on account of accidental death of their young son Maniram, aged 17 years, who died at the spot on 11-11-2007 at 7.00 PM because of electrocution, while he was working in agricultural field. It was averred that 11000 KV line was going over their agricultural land and lines were not properly insulated, wires were hanging at low level and loose, and due to which the deceased Maniram while carrying pipe for irrigation in the fields suffered electric current and died. FIR in this regard was also registered and investigation was conducted. It was averred that the deceased Maniram was a student of 12th class and sport person of national level and had participated in national wrestling competition at Delhi, representing the state of Rajasthan and won the same, and in Secondary class he was meritorious. after the fatal accident of deceased the wire was broken and sparking continued all the night, but the concerned department did not pay any heed. as such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.48,00,000/-.
3. On issuing notices appellants-defendants (hereafter `the defendants') filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and stated that wires were in good condition and at a height of 20 ft. However, they admitted the fact of accident and did not disputed the factum of death of deceased because of electrocution. It was stated that the defendants did not receive any complaint regarding faulty electric lines and it was the duty of plaintiffs to take precaution while working nearby electric lines and no liability could be shifted upon defendants.
4. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed five issues. Plaintiffs examined seven witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. Defendants examined two witnesses and exhibited four documents. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties. Plaintiffs proved their case that the deceased died due to negligence on the part of respondent aVVNL in maintaining electric line of 11000 KV as the same were loose and hanging at a height of 8 ft only below the required height of 20 ft. Defendants witnesses although claimed that electric lines were proper and at the height of 20 ft., but in their cross examination they admitted that they did not visit the place of incident. Nor they produced any record in this regard. They even did not produce the list of employees who were responsible for maintenance of electric lines. They came to know about the accident from news-paper. They denied the report of Investigating Officer, who after investigation of incident reported that electric lines were at the height of 8 ft. Therefore, came to the conclusion that faulty electric line was at the height of 8 ft. only and when the deceased carried pipe on his shoulder touched the electric line and sustained electric current. Relying on evidence of Pw.7 Dr. Narendra Singh Naruka and Post Mortem Report (Ex.6) concluded that the deceased died because of electric current. It was also concluded that according to defendants' witnesses they never visited the site, nor measured the height of wires, nor they produced any record before the court. accordingly the issue No.1, regarding death of deceased due to electric current and faulty electric lines, decided in favour of plaintiffs and issue No.3, regarding negligence on part of deceased and
The principle of strict liability applies to cases involving the negligence of the electricity department in maintaining electric lines, making the department absolutely liable to compensate the vict....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the concept of strict liability, and the duty of the electricity department to maintain elec....
The principle of strict liability and vicarious liability applies when an accident occurs due to negligence in maintaining electricity lines, making the department liable to compensate sufferers.
Electricity providers are strictly liable for accidents caused by negligence in maintaining infrastructure, with compensation calculated based on the deceased's earnings and family dependency.
The court confirmed that governmental entities can be held strictly liable for damages resulting from negligence in maintaining public safety regarding hazardous activities, including electricity sup....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
