BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of judgment of Addl. District Judge (10th), Bhopal passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 3-B/98 dated 3-5-1999.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the questions which call for consideration and determination in this case, it is desirable that some material facts of the case are narrated.

( 3 ) SMT. Shail Kumari (26) is wife of Jogendra Singh (deceased) and Deepak Kumar (7) is son of the deceased. They claimed compensation from the respondents for the death of Jogendra Singh by electrocution. Incident took place on 23-8-1997 when the deceased was going for duty on his bicycle and when he reached Sunder Nagar, naked electricity live wire of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB) was lying on the road and when the deceased got down from his bicycle, he came in contact with it and was electrocuted and died on the spot. Allegation is that Hari Gaikwad had been taking illegal electricity connection from the electric pole. It was the duty of the MPEB to maintain the electricity supply, but, it failed to discharge the duty cast on it nor it prevented Hari Gaikwad from taking illegal supply of electricity. It was due to the negligence of the respondent No. 1 that deceased died due to electrocution. At the time of death deceased was earning Rs. 3500/- per month through wages, out of which he used to spend Rs. 200/- per month on himself leaving Rs. 3300/- to the claimants. He was aged 37 years at the relevant time. The life expectancy of family members was 65 years and in case the deceased had not died untimely, he would have saved Rs. 9,10,800/- for the family. Besides, due to his untimely death, the family members have been deprived of love and affection to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- apart from other losses mentioned in the claim seeking total compensation of Rs. 9,60,800/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 in its written statement has stated that with a view to discharge the responsibility, wherever the electricity line has been taken, staff has been deployed for its maintenance. The staff watches the electricity line day and night and wherever default is found, the same is corrected. Respondent No. 2 is not the consumer of MPEB. No electricity connection has been given to him. Deceased did not die due to the negligence of respondent No. 1, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed being on untrue facts.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has denied the fact that illegal electricity connection was being taken by him. It is also denied that he left loose electricity wire. It is also denied that due to his negligence Jogendra Singh had died.

( 6 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues, on which parties led evidence and finding of the trial Court is that the deceased did not die due to the faulty live electricity wire of respondent No. 1 and did not die due to live electricity wire having been left negligently by respondent No. 1. Consequently, the claim for Rs. 9,60,800/- has been rejected. Although, on fact the trial Court came to the conclusion that the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,34,000/ -. The claimants are not satisfied with the conclusion drawn by the trial Court and ultimate rejection of their claim by the impugned judgment, therefore, this appeal has been filed to challenge the same.

( 7 ) SHRI Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the trial Court has committed serious wrong in dealing with the claim case and in drawing erroneous conclusion in rejecting the claim of the claimants. As a result, wrong findings have been recorded and the claim has been rejected unjustifiably. Although, the claimants have asserted res ipsa loquitor on the part of respondent No. 1 in maintaining the electricity line and non-supervising the supply of electricity in the area resulting in illicit taking of electricity from its wire resulting in the accident, however, it has been promptly concluded by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document