IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no negligence on the plaintiffs' part and confirming the compensation awarded for the electrocution incident.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. The present civil first appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2016 passed by Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur Metro in civil suit nO. 244/2013 (8078/2013) titled as “Keshar Devi and Ors. Vs. JVVNL and Anr., whereby the said court partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,75,368/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6 per cent w.e.f. 08.11.2013.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3. Plaintiffs has filed a suit for compensation of Rs. 17,82,500/-under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. Averments of the plaintiffs are that Late Shri Ramavtar Sharma husband of the plaintiff No. 1 used to reside at his in-laws house at Dhani Laxmipura, Kanota. At the agricultural field of his in-laws, the defendants had electric line of 11 KV and to give support to the above line, some poles were erected with the help of stag wires. It is also stated that some stag wires, were having no insulator. When the deceased Shri Ramavtar Sharma was working in the field on 05.07.2013, because of flow of electric current in the line the deceased got electrocuted and immediately shifted to SMS Hospital, where he was declared dead. On account of negligence on the part of the defendants death of the Shri Ramavtar Sharma occurred. At the time of death, he was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be decreed.

4. Defendants filed a written statement denied the averments made in the plaint and took preliminary objections mentioning that the suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. The defendants have not been made the Investigating Officer as a party and also mentioned that the deceased died due to his mistake. He had touched the line of high voltage with an iron pipe for which there was no negligence of the defendants. After the investigation, no charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the defendants. So, suit be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues-:

1- vk;k oknhx.k] izfroknhx.k ls fnuakd 05-07-2013 dks lqcg 9 cts jkevorkj 'kekZ dh fctyh ls nq?kZVuk esa gqbZ e`R;q ds dkj.k {kfriwfrZ Lo:i l=g yk[k c;klh gtkj ikap lkS :i;s rFkk nq?kZVuk dh fnukad ls olwyh rd 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt lfgr izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\

2- vk;k oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k foHkkx ds fo:) dksbZ okn gsrqd mRiUu ugha gqvk gS\

3- vuqrks"k\

6. To prove his case, plaintiffs adduced the evidence of Kesar Devi as PW-1, Mangilal as PW-2 and Ramnarayan as PW-3 and to prove their case, defendants adduced the evidence of R.S. Bansal as DW-1 and Ishar as DW-2.

7. Trial Court after considering the evidence of the parties, partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs were held entitled to get Rs. 6,75,368/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6 per cent from filing of the suit till realization.

8. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective and wrongly decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that there was no eye-witness of the incident. On account of negligency of the deceased, incident happened. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the trial Court wrongly considered the deceased as unskilled labour for determining the income of the deceased because the plaintiffs failed to prove income of the deceased. So, the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2016 passed by the trial Court be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submits that on account of ne