SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 905

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Smt Geeta Devi - Respondent
CFA / 43 / 2000
Decided On : 10-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Sonal Singh, Mr. Mohd. Adil

Defendants held liable for negligence in maintaining electricity wires leading to electrocution, affirming trial court's compensation award.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Civil suit for compensation - Plaintiffs claimed compensation of Rs.1,14,14,200/- for the death of Shri Murlidhar due to electrocution caused by negligence of defendants - Trial court awarded Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 5% per annum - Defendants contended that the deceased was negligent and the wires were well maintained - Court found that the defendants were liable due to poor maintenance of wires. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Negligence - The court emphasized that the defendants failed to maintain the electricity wires, leading to the accident, and thus were liable for compensation. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming compensation for the death of Shri Murlidhar, who died due to electrocution from broken wires while riding a motorcycle. The defendants denied negligence, attributing the accident to the deceased's rash driving.

Findings of Court:
The trial court awarded Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, finding the defendants liable for the accident due to negligence in maintaining the electricity wires.

Issues: The main issues were whether the defendants were negligent in maintaining the electricity wires and whether the deceased's actions contributed to the accident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendants were liable for the accident due to their failure to maintain the electricity wires properly, affirming the trial court's decision to award compensation.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :

1. This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, District Sikar (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit(Fatal) Case No.25/1998 whereby the trial court while partly allowing the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiff’) awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 5 % per annum from the date of filing the suit as compensation in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants claiming compensation of Rs.1,14,14,200/-. In the suit, the plaintiffs mentioned that on account of the negligence of the defendants, Shri Murlidhar died, on 30.06.1996, when he was going from village Palri to village Kudan on his motor-cycle bearing No.RJ-23-M-0292 which was being driven by him. Shri Ram Niwas S/o Girdhari Lal was also seated on the said motor cycle as pillion rider. When they reached near electricity Pole No.1 and 2, all of the sudden, the wires in between the poles were sparked and fell down on the ground. Deceased could not stop his motor-cycle. In the broken electricity wires, current was flowing. On account of electrocution, Murlidhar died. The said accident occurred due to negligence of the defendants. In the plaint, it was also mentioned that at the time of accident, deceased was 35 years of age and he was a class ‘C’ contractor. In the year 1995-1996, income of the deceased was Rs.82,461/- for which he had paid income tax of Rs.16,492/-. He also got served a contract to build a Referral Hospital in village Kudan for Rs.5,61,000/-. He used to earn Rs.50,000/- per annum by doing agricultural work.

3. The defendants filed the written statement mentioning therein that the poles and electricity lines were very well maintained by them. There was no negligence on the part of the defendants. Shri Murlidhar died due to his negligence. He was riding the motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner. So, for his negligence, the defendants can not be held liable for paying the compensation to the plaintiffs. So, the suit filed by the defendants be dismissed.

4. On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-

5. To prove their case, the plaintiffs got examined (AW-1) Geeta Devi, (AW-2) Soni Devi, (AW-3)Lali, (AW-4) Ganga Devi, (AW-5) Partaram, (AW-6) Girdhari Lal, (AW-7) Harpal Singh, (AW-8)Amarchand and Mahendra Singh.

6. To prove their case, the defendants got examined (DW-1) Anil Kumar and (DW-2) Bajrang Lal.

7. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999, awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 5 % per annum from the date of filing the suit as compensation in favour of the plaintiffs.

8. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside because the trial court has not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that neither any report had ever been lodged against the defendants for their negligence for not maintaining the electricity wires/lines etc properly nor any notice was ever served upon the defendants.

9. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the said motor cycle was being driven by the deceased in a rash and negligent manner. He could avoid from touching the broken wires, if laid on the ground. So, the judgment and decree dated25.11.1999 passed by the trial court be set aside.

10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. It is an admitted position that Murlidhar died due to electrocution and he had sustained curr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top