Hon'ble JAIN, J.—This appeal on behalf of defendants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.1990 passed by the District Judge, Udaipur (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Civil Suit No. 268/1987, Mohan Lal and Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur through its Chairman & Ors., whereby the learned trial Court allowed the claim made by the plaintiff-respondents for compensation under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855 (for short 'the act of 1855' hereinafter) to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- with cost and with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for compensation on 10.8.1987 under the provisions of the Act of 1855 against the defendant-appellants in the trial Court, wherein it was pleaded that the death of their minor daughter Heera Bai aged about 8 years, which according to them, had taken place as a result of her (Heera Bai) coming into contact with the support wire (stay wife) of a wooden pole in which electric current was running. The flow of current in the support wire (stay wire) was attributed to the gross negligence of the appellant-defendants. The plaintiff-respondents have stated in the plaint that there was a complaint made by many persons to the Assistant Engineer, City (Sub-Division-III), R.S.E.B., Udaipur about flowing the electric current in wooden electric pole and copy of that letter dated 1.5.1986 sent to the District Collector and Administrative Authority, Nagar Palika. After lodging the FIR No. 66/1987 by Shri Ashfaq Ahmed, SHO, Police Station, Bhupalpura, himself against J.En. and A.En., R.S.E.B. under Section 304 I.P.C., the plaintiff-respondents claimed total compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards loss of income, love and affection due to death of minor daughter-Heera Bai.

3. The defendant-appellants filed their joint written statements stating therein that there was no flow of any electric current in the support wire (stay wire) of the wooden pole and as such the death of minor girl Heera Bai daughter of plaintiff respondents as a result of electric current was also denied. Defendant-appellants averred that the girl died otherwise but the plaintiff-respondents tried to attribute her death to alleged flow of electric current in the support wire only with a view to claim compensation. The appellant-defendants also raised plea that between the wooden pole and support wire, there was insulator and flow of electric current was not possible in wooden pole. In these circumstances, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court framed 6 issues. The plaintiff-respondents examined PW.1 Mohan Lal, PW.2 Munni Bai, PW.3 Pyarelal and PW.4 Bheru Lal and also produced documentary evidence Ex.1-copy of complaint (Mejor-nama) for flowing the electric current in the electric poles dated 1.5.1986; Ex.2-copy of Post Mortem Report of deceased-Heera Bai; Ex.3-copy of FIR, which was lodged in respect of this accident by SHO, Police Station, Bhupalpura and Ex.4 to 6 photographs of deceased Heera Bai.

5. The defendant-appellants examined DW.1 Bhagwati Prasad Upadhyaya, J.En., R.S.E.B., Udaipur and D.W.2 Hussaini Bhai Bohra, Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B., Udaipur.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment impugned as well as the record of the trial Court.

7. Learned trial Court while deciding the issues in favour of plaintiff-respondents, recorded the finding that the death of Heera Bai-minor daughter aged 8 years of plaintiff-respondents is due to the electric shock and decreed the suit for Rs. 15,000/- vide impugned judgment dated 8.8.1990 with cost and with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The defendant-appellants preferred this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants vehemently submitted that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document