Electricity providers are strictly liable for accidents caused by negligence in maintaining infrastructure, with compensation calculated based on the deceased's earnings and family dependency.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the U.P. State Power Corporation under Section 96 of the C.P.C. against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Pilibhit in Original Suit No. 232 of 2006 ( Smt. Sabeena Begum and others vs. U.P. State Power Corporation ), whereby for the untimely death of Tasleem Ahmad due to electrocution from a high tension electric line on 04.10.2003, when he was going to attend the call of nature at about 9:00 a.m. in the morning, a compensation of Rs.6,23,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 5% per annum has been awarded to the plaintiffs, which has been ordered to be paid by the defendant-appellant U.P. State Power Corporation .

Plaint Case

2. The factual matrix is that on 04.10.2003, at around 9:00 a.m., Tasleem Ahmad (deceased) husband of plaintiff Smt. Sabeena Begum was going to attend the call of nature as usual, then he came into contact with a live 11,000 volt high-tension electric wire that had snapped and fallen in a field. As a result, both his legs were severely burnt, and he died instantaneously. The plaintiffs averred that neither Tasleem nor other villagers were aware that a broken high-tension electric wire was lying in the fields of Jamaluddin and Anokhey Lal in village Banskheda, Tehsil and District Pilibhit.

3. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the above-mentioned electric wire snapped due to the negligence in its maintenance by the defendant- appellant. The autopsy of Tasleem's body was conducted on 05.10.2003, after which he was cremated. At the time of his death, the deceased was about 28 years old, who was a professional truck driver holding a valid licence for driving heavy vehicles, and was earning approximately Rs. 6,000/- per month. The plaintiffs, being the wife, minor children, and parents of the deceased, were entirely dependent on him for their livelihood. The plaintiffs alleged that due to the negligence and carelessness of the officers and servants of the defendant, the alleged accident occurred and accordingly when no compensation was paid to them by the defendant, they filed the instant suit claiming the following reliefs:-

(i) That a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs.6.5 lacs with interest thereon pendente-lite and future at the rate of 24% per annum.

(ii) That the plaintiffs be awarded the costs of the suit against the defendant.

Written Statement of the defendant

4. The defendant filed its written statement before the trial court, in which, the plaint averments were denied. It was specifically denied in the written statement, the fact that the deceased was a truck driver, who was possessing a valid driving licence on the date of the accident and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It was denied that there was any negligence on the part of the defendant or his servants in maintaining the electricity high-tension line. It was further averred that no complaint whatsoever regarding the broken high-tension line was made to the officers of the defendant. It was further averred that the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the suit. It was further averred that the accident was never brought to the notice of the defendant and the defendant always maintained the high-tension electricity line properly and if the electricity line was broken, then automatically the flow of electricity stops, as such, no questi