1. Decree dated November 30, 2004, of learned Additional District Judge, Kishtwar, awarding an amount of Rupees seven lacs as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 6 per cent till realization in favour of respondent, the father of two minor children who were electrocuted because of short circuit affecting electric pole installed near an electric transformer at Bus Stand, Kishtwar, has been appealed against by the State appellants.

2. The case of the respondent plaintiff is that he is a poor pedlar settled in Village Lal Pattan, Kishtwar, who started putting up in Kishtwar to make his both ends meet. On July 22, 2000, two children of the respondent plaintiff, namely Akthar Hussain and Baby Rozy, were coming towards their dwelling place, when at about 7 p.m., they were electrocuted near an electric transformer at Bus Stand, Kishtwar.

3. An amount of Rupees ten lacs was claimed as compensation under various heads. The appellants refuted their liability on the premise that the electric transformer installed at Bus Stand had been properly fenced and was four yards away from the main road. Even if, it was faulty, the pedestrians on the main road, would not be affected unless they fiddle with it. The appellants claimed that there was no fault or negligence on their part and that they were not liable to pay compensation to the respondent, as the death of the children had occurred because of their own act.

4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues:-

"1. Whether on 22.7.2000 the children of the plaintiff namely Akhter Hussain and Miss Rozi while going towards their house at about 7 PM died on account of electrocution, near Bus Stand Kishtwar, caused due to the negligent act of the defendants as the electric pole installed near the Transformer was short-circuit? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive damages to the amount of Rupees ten lacs from the defendants on account of death of the said children? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has not served the notice u/s 80 CPC & u/s 33 of the Electricity Act on the defendants, if so, what is its effect on the suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants if so how? OPD

5. Relief."

5. After discussing evidence of the parties, Issues No. 1 to 4 were decided in favour of the respondent and an amount of Rupees seven lacs alongwith interest at the rate of six per cent from the date of institution of suit was awarded as compensation in favour of the respondent plaintiff.

6. Mrs. S. Hakim, learned Dy. Advocate General for the appellants, submits that the State is not liable for the electrocution of the minors because the minors had unauthorizedly made their entry in the electric transformer enclosure. They, thus, cannot take benefit of their own wrongs. Quantum of compensation too is on higher side, submits the learned Dy. Advocate General.

7. M/s S. M. Wajahat and A. A. Hamal, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submit that the State was negligent in maintaining its electric transformer and electric pole and that the evidence of the appellants too acknowledges that the electrocution of the children was because of the short circuit. They further submit that the State is under an obligation to take all requisite measures to ensure that the functioning of the electric transformer/s and electric lines does not cause any harm to the passer-by. They further submit that the appellants have not led any evidence on the basis whereof the claim of the respondent could be justifiably contested.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

9. The case set up by the appellants in their reply to the petition of the respondent under Section 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, gets demolished by the official witnesses who were produced by them during the trial of the case.

DW- Asgar Hussain states that he was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer, Kish

Click Here to Read the rest of this document