The principle of res ipsa loquitur can be applied to infer negligence from the circumstances of an incident.

JUDGMENT :

Sanju Panda, J. - The point involved being similar in both the appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. RFA No.201 of 2009 arises from the impugned judgment and decree dated 7th March, 2009 and 21st March, 2009 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimapara in Money Suit No.40/71 of 2000/1998.

RFA No.279 of 2009 arises from the impugned judgment and decree dated 6th August, 2009 and 20th August, 2009 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimapara in Money Suit No. 41/72 of 2000/1998.

3. The facts, as narrated in the records, are as follows:

In RFA No.201 of 2009, the plaintiff-respondents are widow, minor children and parents of the deceased Laxmidhar Sahoo and in RFA No.279 of 2009, the plaintiff-respondents are widow, children and parents of the deceased Chandramani Sahoo. Both the deceased are sons of Jhatu Sahoo and Karunakar Sahoo. On the date of occurrence, the age of the deceased was 30 and 40 years respectively. On 3rd November, 1997 both the brothers had been to their betel vine to irrigate the same. While the deceased Chandramani was coming from the field carrying the pump set on his head, the pump set came in contact with a live conductor as a result of which it was immediately charged at the spot as the open electric line was hanging at a very low height. When deceased Chandramani was struggling after coming in contact with electric shock, his brother Laxmidhar tried to save him. However, both the brothers succumbed being charged with electric current at the spot. The defendants were negligent in maintaining the proper height of the live electric wire. As such, the deceased came in contact with the high voltage electric current and lost their lives. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay compensation for their negligent act. The deceased were doing agricultural and labour work. So, the plaintiffs claimed compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- in Money Suit No.41/72 of 2000/1998 and Rs.8,50,000/- in Money Suit No.40/71 of 2000/1998.

4. Though defendants 1 to 6 received notice, they did not file any written statement. In both the suits, they were set ex parte except Chief Executive Officer, CESU Ltd., IDCO Tower, defendant no.7. He contested the suit by filing written statement in Money Suit No.40/71 of 2000/1998 taking a stand that a three-phase low transmission line was supplied to the lift irrigation point of one Gopinath Swain who is represented by his sons defendants 2 to 4. The said line was disconnected due to non-payment of electrical dues since 23rd March, 1997. Therefore, if the death was due to electrocution then the same might have been possible due to the pilferage or theft of electricity by the deceased by hooking process. He also took a stand that the money suits were not maintainable as they were not negligent in any manner in compliance of the statutory duties. Hence, the plaintiffs are not liable to get any compensation.

5. In support of their case, both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence.

6. On the above pleadings, the trial court formulated as many as four issues in Money Suit No.40/71 of 2000/1998 which are as follows :

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable under law?

(ii) Whether defendant no.7 was negligent and did not perform its statutory duty which caused the death of Laxmidhar due to electrocution?

(iii) Whether D.7 is liable to pay compensation and what should be its quantum?

(iv) What more reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?

7. In Money Suit No.41/72 of 2000/1998, the trial court determined the following questions:

Whether the deceased got electrocuted due to negligence of the defendants? And, What will be the quantum of compensation in case the deceased died due to electrocution?

8. On an analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties and the materials available on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the suits are maintainable and are not barred by la