The principle of strict liability applies to the Electricity Board, which is bound to compensate the claimants for accidents related to its functioning.

JUDGMENT

1. Both these first appeals have been filed under Section 96 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1998 passed in Suit No.20/96 by the District Judge, Baran, whereby and whereunder the plaintiff’s suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 for compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- along with interest @12% per annum has been decreed to be paid by defendants jointly and severally.

Since the Municipal Board, Baran has also been held liable to pay the compensation alongwith the Electricity Department, these two appeals have been filed by both of them.

2. The facts of the case are that on 9.6.1996 at 7:00 AM while plaintiff’s daughter Seema was taking bath, she accidentally touched the wall wherein electric current was flowing and she stuck with the wall and became unconscious. She was taken to Baran Hospital for her treatment of electrocution from where on 10.6.1996 she was referred to Kota but in the way she succumbed. The incident was reported to police station Baran but no steps were taken. It was stated that Seema was eldest unmarried daughter in family and 8th class passed and was earning Rs.100/- per day for the family by selling vegetables. It was stated that defendants installed electric pole near the house of plaintiffs and for straightening the pole, one separate wire (stag) was fixed in the house premises of plaintiffs and this stag wire was passing through the wall of bathroom of plaintiffs. In that stag wire, the electric current flowed and the fatal accident occurred due to which plaintiff has died because of electrocution. Therefore, the suit for compensation Rs. 3,60,000/- has been filed.

3. On issuing notices appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the death of Seema due to electrocution. It was stated that the wire for strengthening the pole was already fixed and the plaintiffs by encroaching upon took that wire in the bathroom for which the plaintiffs themselves are responsible. It was impossible for the department to fix the wire in any house. Plaintiffs never moved any application for removing the wire nor any application was moved for maintaining the wire. It was stated that the incident of electrocution was not reported to the department, therefore, no compensation shall be awarded. It was further stated that on the electric pole municipality Baran has installed tube-light and other features to maintain the same, the responsibility was of Municipality Baran and plaintiffs have not impleaded Municipality Baran, therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed.

Later on plaintiffs also impleaded, Municipal Board, Baran as defendant No.3 in the suit.

4. Defendant No.3 Municipality Baran filed written statement and submitted that Municipality has wrongly been impleaded. It was the duty of Electricity Department to maintain electric poles and the suit against Municipality be dismissed.

5. On the basis of rival pleadings, the trial court framed six issues.

First, whether on 9.6.1996, plaintiffs’ daughter Seema died because of electric current in wall?

Second, whether the electric current flow in the wall of the plaintiffs’ house from the wire fixed for support of the electric pole, plaintiffs requested to remove the same but defendants did not remove the wire nor maintained the same?

Third, whether plaintiffs were entitled for compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- from defendants?

Fourth, whether plaintiffs themselves construct the bathroom illegally capturing the stag of electric pole, therefore, they themselves are responsible for the accident?

Fifth, whether the electric pole is within jurisdiction of Nagar Palika, Baran, it is necessary party?

Six, Relief?

6. Plaintiffs examined two witnesses and exhibited documents, Defendants examined two witnesses.

7. The trial Court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties, concluded that Seema died because of electrocution and the issue No.1 was decided in favour of plaintiffs. Issue No.2 regarding request by plaintiffs for removal of stag