The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability for compensation due to negligence resulting in an electric shock and the application of principles from motor accidents claims cases to determine the quantum of compensation.

JUDGMENT

 Rajnesh Oswal, J. - This civil 1st appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Poonch (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) whereby the suit filed by the respondent has been partly decreed and the appellants have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,43,600/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till realization.

2. Cross-Objections have also been filed by the respondents for enhancement of the compensation.

3. The judgment/decree has been impugned by the appellants on the grounds inter alia that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and the plea taken by the appellants in their written statement that the respondent while committing theft of oil from the transformer installed in the land of his ancestors received electric shock has not been considered at all by the trial court. It is also stated that there is absolutely no basis or justification for awarding compensation by the trial court in favour of the respondent.

4. The respondent has filed the cross-objections to the appeal by stating that the compensation awarded in favour of the respondent is insufficient and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

5. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned trial court has not considered the pleadings of the appellants and further there was no evidence before the trial court for granting compensation for an amount of Rs. 7,43,600/- in favour of the respondent.

6. Per contra, Mr. R. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that no evidence was led by the appellants before the learned trial court and the respondent had led the evidence only and as such, learned trial court has rightly returned the finding with regard to negligence of the appellants but the learned trial court has not rightly awarded the quantum of compensation as the respondent was entitled to higher compensation.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent was permitted to sue the appellants as an indigent person vide order dated 23.10.2013. It was pleaded by the respondent that on 08.04.2009 while he was grazing cattle in the land of his grandfather due to electric transformer that was installed for PHE lift scheme Uchhaad Nabana, he suffered an electric shock. The wires were not made live initially and the respondent and his father were told by the appellants that before making the electric wires live, they would inform them well in time but without informing the respondent and his father, the appellants made the wires live and the height of the wires was only 4-5 ft from the earth and that too without any fencing. Due to negligence of the appellants, the respondent got an electric shock in his right arm, which was amputated during treatment at Government Medical College, Jammu. It was also pleaded by the respondent that at the time of this incident, he was studying in 10th class and due to electric shock, the respondent has suffered a lot and could not continue his education. Further that the respondent became handicapped and was examined by the board of doctors who declared the respondent as suffering the disability of 70% of the right upper limb. It was also pleaded by the respondent that his future has been spoiled and further that he would have earned more in his life and achieve higher status in life but for this incident.

9. The written statement was filed by the appellants before the trial court pleading therein that the occurrence had not taken place because of lapse on the part of the appellants but due to the mala fide intention of the respondent to commit theft of oil from the transformer and while doing so, he suffered a shock. It was also pleaded that the family of the respondent had provided the land for installation