The main legal point established is that negligence in the maintenance of electric lines, leading to injury and permanent disability, can result in liability under the Electricity Act, 2003. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2009, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rajouri, whereby the respondent has been allowed to recover Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% till the amount is paid from the respondents.

2. It is submitted in the appeal that the judgment has been passed which is not based upon facts. No FIR was lodged nor was any MLC record produced by the respondent herein. The suit was hit by limitation. The amount granted by the trial court is not as per the mandate of law. It is on the aforesaid count that the appellant seeks setting aside of judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

3. The respondent has appeared through the counsel. The original record of the trial court is before the court for perusal.

4. The case set up by the respondent in the suit was that the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in the suit had laid electric lines in village Gambeer Brahmana and the lineman was deputed for maintenance of electric line. One such pole for electric line was installed in between the houses and lands of Mohd. Qayoom and Pritam Lal. The aforesaid pole installed got bent due to storm in the months of February and March, 1992 and the wires got loose from the poles and were not visible due to the growth of maize crop. No steps were taken by the Power Development Department for repair of the line and pole despite complaints filed with the department by the persons of the locality. It is further submitted that on 15.03.1992 when the plaintiff was of 12 years of age and was on his way to his house from the school he was trapped by the loose wire in the field as a result he got electric shock and lost his consciousness and remained admitted in the hospital for 20 days. He was treated in the Government Hospital, Rajouri for one month and is still under treatment. He received electric burns over his left arm which got shrinked to such extent that he became permanently disabled up to 60%. It is in the context of the aforesaid facts that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.17 lacs from the respondents.

5. The written statement was filed by the defendants whereby the assertion of the plaintiff was denied. The defendants had submitted that no crop of maize is sown or grown in the month of March. The defendants submit that the notice with regard to the suit was received but no reply was filed as the suit was filed soon thereafter by the plaintiff. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial court framed the following issues in the suit :-

“1. Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 had laid electric Wires in between the houses and lands of Mohd. Quyoom and Pretam Lal in village Gambeer Brahmana for the last 10 years and defendant No.3 being lineman was responsible for its maintenance? OPP

2. In case if issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the pole of aforesaid electric line had bent down and its electric wires let loose? OPP

3. Whether on 15.3.1992 due to the negligence of the defendants the electric wires were let loose and the plaintiff while going back to his house was trapped in the said electric wires and suffered an electric shock causing him permanent disablement? OPP

4. In case issue No.3 is proved in affirmative whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1700000/-as compensation from the defendants? OPP

5. Whether the suit is within the period of limitation? OPP

6. Relief.”

7. The plaintiff examined Noor Hussain, Mohd. Riaz, Mohd. Qayoom, Kasturi Lal Gupta and Dr. Sansar Choudhary in support of the case. The plaintiff also examined himself as a witness in the case.

8. The defendant No.3 appeared as a witness who was arrayed in the plaint being the lineman of the area at the relevant time. No other witness is produced by the defendants in the case.

9. PW-Tufail Ahmad has deposed in line with the case set up by him in the plaint as he has deposed that he came in contact with the electric wire in Marc