Procedural non-compliance under the Electricity Act does not bar compensation claims under the Fatal Accidents Act, as the latter's provisions govern entitlement to damages.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 22/8/2019 passed by Addl. District Judge No.2, Rajgarh, District Churu, whereby, the suit for compensation filed by the plaintiffs under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 has been decreed and a sum of Rs.10,26,000/- has been awarded as compensation along with interest @ of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, wife & children of deceased Rajesh Kumar, inter alia with the submissions that on 14/7/2016 at about 7 pm when deceased Rajesh Kumar, aged 32 years, was returning back to home from the workshop of his uncle Mani Ram, he came in contact with stay wire of electricity pole on the southern side of the workshop in which current was flowing, to which he succumbed. It was indicated that around the stay wire, rain water had accumulated and the land around it was wet and electric current was flowing therein. As Rajesh Kumar was passing nearby the stay wire, on account of electric current in the wet land, he fell on the stay wire and died on the spot. He was taken to the Government Hospital, where he was declared dead. FIR was lodged and Postmortem was conducted. The doctor and police investigation found the cause of death as electrocution. It was alleged that it was the responsibility of the defendants to maintain the electricity pole, electricity line and stay wire and repair the same from time to time. It was indicated that on several occasions certain persons made complaints, however, same was not repaired and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.1,01,50,000/-.

3. The defendants by filing written statement contested the averments made in the plaint and submitted that no information about death of Rajesh Kumar by electrocution was given. The accident is suspicious and concocted. It was indicated that rains had not started on 14/7/2016 and no water was collected around the stay wire, land was not wet and no electric current was flowing on to the stay wire and in the wet land. The basis for claiming compensation was also denied. In additional pleas, it was indicated that provisions of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ('the Act') were not followed and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the submissions of the parties, the trial court framed three issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and 17 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined.

5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that in police report (Ex.1) there were specific indications that Rajesh Kumar died on account of electrocution. The postmortem report (Ex.10) indicated the cause of death as electrocution and as the site map (Ex.8) indicated rain water collected around the electricity pole, the evidence led by the plaintiffs was substantiated and the defendants had failed to produce any material evidence and consequently found that the accident occurred at the alleged placed on account of negligence on the part of defendants.

6. While assessing the quantum of compensation, the trial court by taking the income of the deceased as that of unskilled workman at minimum wages and applying the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 awarded compensation of Rs. 10,26,000/- along with interest, as indicated hereinbefore.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court fell in error in awarding compensation and holding the appellants negligent. Submissions were made that provisions of Section 161 of the Act were not complied with, which deprived the appellants from investigating as to whether the accident occurred in terms of the allegations made and on that count the judgment impugned cannot be sustained.

8. Further submissions were made that it was not proved by any cogent evidence that current in fact was flowing in the stay wire and that