The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of strict liability and the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' to hold the Defendants liable for compensation due to the foreseeable risk inherent in the nature of their activity involving hazardous exposure to human life.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J. - Since both these Appeals as at Item No.I and II arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Bolangir in Money Suit No.2/21 of 2002-03, those had been heard together for their disposal by this common judgment to be followed by the decree.

2. The Appellants in the Appeal under Item No.I are the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit whereas Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the Plaintiffs and Respondent Nos.6 and 7 had been arraigned as Defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court.

The Appellants in the Appeal Under Item No.II are the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 whereas the Respondents No.1 to 5 are the Plaintiffs and Respondent Nos.6 and 7 had been arraigned as the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit. The parties hereinafter for the sake of convenience and avoid confusion in brining clarity have been referred to as per their placement in the suit before the Trial Court.

3. Plaintiffs have filed the suit claiming compensation of Rs.5,75,000/- from the Defendants for the death of Balgopal Sahu by electrocution alleging that it was on account of negligence on the part of the Defendants in maintaining the electric connections and supply of electricity in the area where the unfortunate incident took place.

Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters and son whereas Plaintiff No.5 is the mother of deceased Balgopal.

Plaintiff's case is that on 05.06.2001 around 11 A.M. Balgoapl saw one she calf near the bari of Defendant Nos.2 and 4 in a gasping condition struggling for life. So to save that she-calf, when he pulled it, he came in contact with live snapped electric wire. The brother of the deceased being present there, immediately disconnected the supply of electricity by cutting the line from the pole. Having sustained severe burn injuries in the said incident, the deceased was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. A criminal case had been initiated at the Police Station within whose jurisdiction the place of incident is situated. It is stated that the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 had taken unauthorized electric connection to their lift irrigation point and that was in connivance with the local lineman working under the Defendant No.1 , i.e., The Western Electricity Supply Company in charge of that area for maintenance of the electric lines and other connections and supply of electricity. It is alleged that no such care was taken by those Defendants in properly repairing and marinating the electrical connection for supply of electricity so as to prevent any such untoward incident. So, they stated that the incident had taken place on account of negligence on the part of the Defendants, who are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the said death.

As per the case of the Plaintiffs, the deceased was a cultivator and also running an utensil shop at Loisingha Bus Stand and his monthly income was around Rs.6,000/- It is their case that at the time of the death, he was aged about 40 years. He died leaving these Plaintiffs as his legal heirs, who are all his dependants.

4. The Defendant Nos.1 to 2 in their written statement denied the factum of death of Balgopal by coming in contact with snapped live electric wire. It is their case that Defendant Nos.3 and 4 had taken unauthorized electric connection to their Lift Irrigation Point in connivance with the local Lineman working under them and, therefore, the burden as to payment of compensation to the Plaintiffs, if any, is upon those Defendant Nos.3 and 4. They have also challenged the age and income of the deceased as pleaded in the plaint.

5. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 while traversing the plaint averments have stated that Balgopal had not died by coming into contact with the snapped live electric wire. They claimed to have never taken any unauthorized electric connection by drawing line to their Lift Irrigation Point. Thus, it is said that they had absolutely no involvement in the said incident.

6. On the above rival pleadi