The principle of strict liability and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were applied to establish the liability of the Defendants for the death of Braja Kishore due to electrocution.

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 dated 16.08.2019 and 27.08.2019 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in R.F.A. No.61 of 2016. By the said judgment and decree, the lower Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri, in C.S. No.2 of 2005.

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. The Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the widow and daughter of late Braja Kishore Mohanty whereas Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are his sons. It is stated that on 28.04.2004 around 10.40 pm when Braja Kishore was returning home, on the road near Ram Mandir, a live overhead electric wiere suddenly got detached from the poles and touched Braja Kishroe. For that he was electrocuted and died. This incident of sudden death of Braja Kishore due to electrocution is said to be on account of gross negligence on the part of the Defendants who are in-charge of supply of electricity and maintenance of the supply lines, accessories etc. It is stated that although on earlier occasions, complaints for improper maintenance of overhead electric wire and other fittings in the area had been made before the Defendants, those had never been attended to. For the unfortunate incident in which Braja Kishore died, information being lodged before the Inspector-in-Charge of Sea Beach Police Station, U.D. Case No.9 of 2004 has been registered and post mortem examination over the dead body of Braja Kishore was conducted. The doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination, has given the report that the death was due to electrocution. It is the further case of the Plaintiffs that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month from his business and maintaining his family which after his death is under great stress and strain. In view of the above, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit claiming the compensation from the Defendants.

4. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement. It is their case that on 28.04.2004 around 8.00 pm there was drizzling in the area followed by mini storm. It is stated that at the spot, one two Phase wire line was existing and the terminating point was at a distance of 15 meters from the said spot. The victim when was passing on the road, on account of sudden strom, the overhead live electric wire at the spot got snapped as one green tree branch full over it. Under the circumstance, the Defendants deny their negligence in the said incident and submit to have no liability in the matter of payment of compensation.

5. On above rival pleadings, the Trial Court has framed as many six issues. Coming to examine issue no.5, as to negligence on the part of the Defendants, in the backdrop of the pleadings upon analysis of evidence and further keeping in view the settled position of law in such factual settings, as established, answer has been rendered against the Defendants in attributing negligence to them for the said incident and consequently, they are held liable to pay the compensation.

Taking up the other issue relating to determination of compensation, going through the evidence, the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Plaintiffs with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of death till payment.

6. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, carried an appeal under section 96 of the Code.

The lower Appellate Court having taken up the point for determination as to whether the death of Braja Kishore was due to electrocution for the negligence of the Defendant Nos.1 to 3, on going through the evidence and upon their appreciation at its level,