The judgment established the principle that those involved in the transmission of high-voltage electric energy are liable for damages caused by its uncontrolled escape, and it applied the principles of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to calculate compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellants, State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, impugn in this Civil First Appeal the judgement and decree dated 31.05.2007, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ramban (for short 'trial court') in a Civil Suit bearing File No. 01/Civil Sh. Prabat Singh and others v. State of J&K and others, directing the appellants, State of J&K, to pay to the respondents herein compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,29,000/- along with 9% interest pendent lite and 6% thereafter till realization of decretal amount, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. A civil suit, as is coming forth from perusal of the file, was filed by respondent no. 1, being the natural guardian of respondents nos. 2 to 5 for recovery of Rs. 5.00 lakhs as compensation, averring therein that Smt. Chinar Devi-wife of respondent no. 1 and mother of respondents 2 to 5 on 14.04.2001 while climbing a pear tree to pick up fruit for her personal consumption, got electrocuted in Village Inyar coming in contact with High Tension Electric Line touching the said tree. It is the case of the respondents (plaintiffs) that the deceased died due to negligence of the appellants as the Electric Department had fixed the High-Tension Line in village Inyar ignoring the specifications and standing instructions for the erection of the High-Tension live lines.

3. Appellants, State of Jammu and Kashmir, resisted the plaint of respondents before the Trial Court on the ground that high-tension line in question exists on the same route for more than thirty years, having adequate ground clearance and trees are also at adequate distance and, thus, it was denied that 11 K.V. line was touching the trees. However, appellants admitted the accident but denied that they are liable to pay compensation.

4. The trial court, in view of pleadings of parties, framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the deceased Chinar Devi Died on 14.07.2001 at Village Inyar, due to electrocution in view of the negligence of the defendants? OPP.

2. In case issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, what compensation the defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiff? OPP.

3. Relief.

5. Respondents/plaintiffs produced and examined three witnesses before the trial court; besides plaintiff no. 1. Appellant-State of Jammu & Kashmir also produced two witnesses in support of its stand. By impugned judgement and decree, the Trial Court found respondents entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2,29,000/- along with 9% interest pendent lite and 6% till final realization of decretal amount.

6. I have heard learned counsel for parties, perused the record and considered the matters.

7. Learned counsel for appellants, State of Jammu & Kashmir, in order to strengthen the case, set up in appeal on hand, has stated that the Trial Court has not appreciated the case in its right and proper perspective inasmuch as statement of witnesses produced by respondents could not have been relied upon on the ground of the impossibility of ocular account. It is submitted that at the time of occurrence, the witnesses could not have been present at the place of occurrence, which fact is clear from the postmortem report. According to the report postmortem has been conducted on 15.07.2001 at 9.30 am which suggest that the accident took place at 16.00 to 17.00 hours before the postmortem which means that the accident took place at about 5.00 pm on 14.7.2001, whereas the PW witness, namely, Jai Singh, the cousin of claimant, in his cross examination has stated that he reached the site of accident at about 2.00 to 3.00 pm. It is also contended that the evidence produced by respondents is concocted and the fact is that deceased must have died because of bending of the tree towards the HT line especially on the ground as such no fault or negligence for maintaining the 1 KV line can be attributed to the appellants. It is also submitted that the tree is a growing living body and until or unless checked by artificial means, grows contin