The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of strict liability and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to establish liability in cases of fatal accidents due to negligence.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2015 passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Cuttack in R.F.A. No. 71 of 2012 confirming the judgment and decree dated 9.1.2012 and 19.1.2012 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second, Cuttack in C.S. (III) No. 22 of 2009.

2. The respondents are the unfortunate parents of one Baburam Barik, who died in electrocution. They instituted the suit for realization of Rs.5 lakhs with PI and FI towards compensation for the death of their son in electrocution. The case of the plaintiffs is that on 3.9.2009 at about 5.15 am while their son Baburam Barik was returning home, near Tanla river of Kulajalarpur, he came in contact with live electric wire, which was hanging at a low height. He succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The matter was reported to the Niali Police Station, whereafter U.D. Case No. 02/09 was registered. The dead body was sent for autopsy. Post mortem was conducted at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. It is further stated that the defendants were guilty of non-maintenance of electric wire and the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the defendants. The victim was 33 years of age at the time of accident. He was the only earning member of his family. He was earning Rs.5000/- per month as a sugarcane cultivator.

3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant nos. 2 and 3 entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Apart from challenging the maintainability of the suit for want of cause of action and non-joinder of necessary parties, the defendants denied the allegations of non-maintenance of electric wire periodically. It is stated that they have no knowledge about the death of the victim due to electrocution. The local people on the alleged date assembled in the office of the defendants and created disturbance. The Tahasildar and Police Officer intervened in the matter and as per their advice, the defendants paid Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiffs. The defendant nos. 1 and 4 were set ex-parte.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues, out of which, issue nos. 3 to 5 are pivotal issues and the same are quoted hereunder.

“(3) Did the death of the victim take place due to electrocution?

(4) Has the incident occurred on account of the negligence of the defendants?

(5) Are the defendants liable to compensate in terms of money to the plaintiffs on account of the death of their son and if so, what is the quantum of compensation payable to them?”

5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined three witnesses and on their behalf ten documents had been exhibited. The defendants had examined one witness.

6. Learned trial court came to hold that P.W.2 was an eyewitness to the occurrence. Though he was subjected to extensive cross-examination, but nothing was elicited from him. The inquest report, Ext.4, dead body challan, Ext.5, post mortem report, Ext.6 support the plea of electrocution. Ext.4 and Ext.6 do lend support to the ocular testimony of P.W.2 regarding the cause of death. Ext.7, certified copy of the final report supports the plea of electrocution. It further held that Ext.4 to 7 are all public documents prepared by the public officers in due discharge of their public functions. Presumption of correctness attached thereto. In absence of materials contrary to the same, the contents available therein are correct. Further the very admission of the defendants in the pleadings and evidence with regard to payment of Rs.5,000/- to the family of the victim soon after the incident, strengthens the claim of the plaintiffs. Had there been no incident of electrocution, payment of compensation, however, small it may be, would not have been made by the department. Learned trial court came to a categorical conclusion that the son of the plaintiffs died due to electrocution on 3.9.2009 at 5.15 am on t