IMPORTANT POINT
The primary liability for compensation in cases of electrocution lies with the electricity supplier when negligence in maintaining safe electrical infrastructure is established, regardless of the victim's actions during an emergency.

JUDGMENT :

Sindhu Sharma, J.

1. This civil first appeal arises out of the judgment dated 31.05.2005 passed by the District Judge, Bhaderwah in a suit titled 'Zaitoon Begum & Ors. v. State & Ors'.

2. The material facts arising in this case are that; appellants/plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. Five lac as compensation on account of the death of Akhter Hussain, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5, due to electric shock suffered on 15.11.1991 because of negligence, non-maintenance, improper electrification and installation of defective transformer and wires at village Kandoolu, Tehsil Gandoh. On 15.11.1991, transformer installed near the house of the plaintiffs at village Kandoolu caught fire at 10:30 p.m. and in order to save the lives of his family and his property, all the inhabitants of the area disconnected their service line. The deceased-Akhter Hussain rushed to switch off the main switch of the service line and in order to save the family, but suffered electric shock and died. As per the post mortem conducted by the Block Medical Officer, Gandoh, the deceased died due to electric shock. An F.I.R. No. 86/1991 with Police Station Gandoh Bhalessa of the accident was also registered. The plaintiffs thereafter served the notice under section 80 of CPC upon the defendants for payment of Rs. 5 lac as compensation on 15.04.1992.

3. In the written statement filed by the respondents/defendants admitted the accident and death of the Akhtar Hussain but denied their liability to pay compensation according to them the deceased died due to his own negligence even though, the registration of the F.I.R. for the death by negligence under section 304-A RPC though was admitted by the respondents/defendants.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

I. Whether electric transformer installed at village Kandoolu Teh. Gandoh by the PDD Department caught fire on 15.11.1991 at 10:30 p.m. due to the negligence of the defendants and their employees? OPP

II. Whether due to the fire to the said transformer, the deceased Akhter Hussain tried to disconnect the service line of his house and while switching off the main switch of his house received electric shock and died on the spot instantaneously? OPP

III. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation from the defendants for the death of deceased Akhter Hussain due to the negligence of the defendants and their employees, if so how much amount and in what proportion? OPP

IV. Whether the plaintiffs served a valid notice under section 80 CPC on the defendants? OPP

V. Relief.

5. On the issues framed, the parties lead their evidence and the trial court decided Issue Nos. 1 & 2 together being inter linked and both these issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and the trial court on the evidence of Muneer Ahmed, Talib Hussain, returned finding that the transformer had developed defect, two years ago and despite information, the department did not rectify the defect and the deceased died while he was switching off the main switch of his house. The transformer feeding the whole village and the same was not repaired because of want of funds because of which, electric supply to the village was of single phase and there was short-circuit.

6. The transformer being defective was supplying current in single phase and caught fire abruptly. Abdul Rashid-Foreman has admitted in his statement the fact that the transformer was defective and this was brought to the notice of the higher authorities and AE concerned namely Kulbhushan Sharma has also stated that the higher authorities were informed about the defective transformer but due to lack of funds, it could not be repaired. It is also admitted that the deceased died due to electrocution which is also in the enquiry report of the defendants, as such, Issue Nos. 1 & 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

7. The Issue No. 4 regarding service of valid notice under section