Point of Law: Death due to Negligence of Electricity Board – Liability to pay compensation - Responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human, being, who gets unknowingly trapped into if the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellants, by filing this appeal, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Salipur in RFA No. 50 of 2015 filed by the present Appellants being faced with a cross appeal from the side of the Respondent no. 1. By the said judgment, the lower appellate court while deciding the appeal as well as cross appeal having affirmed the finding of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court, Cuttack in CS (III) No. 27 of 2012 on the core issues such as framing of the suit and the negligence of the defendants incurring the liability to be saddled with the payment of compensation has however taken a view that the assessment of compensation as made by the trial court is on a lower side. Accordingly, the trial court having awarded compensation of Rs.5,50,300/- with interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum with effect from 27.09.2021 till payment as payable by the Appellants to the Respondent; lower appellate court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 03.11.2012, the date of filing of the suit till payment as just and proper.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

3. Plaintiffs’ case is that on 27.09.2012 when her husband was going to his agricultural field, he suddenly came in contact with 11 K.V. electric wire, electrocuted and met an instantaneous death by said electrocution. The report to that effect being lodged with the Inspector-in-charge, Mahanga Police Station; P.S. Case No. 146 of 2012 was registered and post mortem examination over the dead body was made. The husband of the Plaintiff No.1is said to be aged about 44 years at the time of death and it is stated that he was engaged in cultivation and sale of the agricultural products and in this way earning a sum of Rs.8,000/-per month. For the said death, the Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 being the wife and mother of the deceased respectively filed the suit claiming compensation from the Defendants i.e. Central Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa and its official In-charge of the supply of electricity and maintenance etc. in the area. It may be stated here that the Plaintiff No.2, the mother of the deceased having died in the meantime, she is no more in the arena of this lis. It is also pertinent to state that the deceased has also left behind two minor sons who are now in care and custody of the Plaintiff No.2. Those two minor although are not added as Plaintiffs, yet the Plaintiff No.1 has clearly pleaded the same and the compensation has also been claimed in their behalf. In view of the above, Plaintiff No.1 hereinafter is referred to as the ‘Plaintiff’

4. The Defendants contested the suit by denying that the said death of husband of the Plaintiff No. 1 by electrocution to have taken place on account of any negligence on their part and it is stated that for the same the Defendants are in no way responsible. In this connection, it has been specifically pleaded that an electric wire being snapped when touches the ground, automatically supply of electricity gets disrupted through the entire wire and it is only in the event any one touches the over head live electric wire by some way or other, it may be fatal. It is, therefore, said that the case of the Plaintiff that her husband died by electrocution by coming in contact with live electric wire lying on the road being snapped from over head drawn electric line is totally false.

5. The trial court on the above rival case having framed six issues appears to have rightly proceeded to take up issue nos. 1, 4 and 5 as those are the core issues. In the backdrop of the rival case of the parties and upon appreciation of evidence let in; the trial court has recorded the findings that the dea