Back
B.M. Lal, J.
Gindiya Bai
vs
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board ...
DECIDED ON : 3 July, 1990
FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT - NEGLIGENCE - SECTION 1A - ELECTRICITY RULES, 1956, RULE 91 - LIABILITY OF ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR DEATH DUE TO ELECTRIC SHOCK - QUANTUM OF DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
Bhagchand, aged 18, died due to electric shock from a stay-wire of a transformer installed by the M.P. Electricity Board (MPEB). His mother, Gindiya Bai, filed a suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, claiming damages of Rs. 80,475/-. The MPEB denied liability, alleging that the accident occurred due to unauthorized connection by the Irrigation Department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the MPEB was negligent in maintaining the transformer and line, as it failed to take necessary precautions to prevent the accident. The court also found that the MPEB had not discharged its burden of proving that it had taken all necessary precautions.
Issues: 1. Whether the MPEB was negligent in maintaining the transformer and line, leading to the accident? 2. Whether the MPEB had discharged its burden of proving that it had taken all necessary precautions to prevent the accident? 3. Quantum of damages to be awarded to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the MPEB was negligent in maintaining the transformer and line, as it failed to take necessary precautions to prevent the accident. The court relied on the principle of res ipsa loquitur and Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, which requires overhead lines to be covered with insulating material. 2. The court held that the MPEB had not discharged its burden of proving that it had taken all necessary precautions to prevent the accident. The court noted that the MPEB's employees had failed to properly inspect the line and transformer, and that the stay-wire was not properly insulated. 3. The court awarded the appellant a total compensation of Rs. 80,475/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the plaint.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the cross-objection filed by the MPEB was dismissed. The MPEB was ordered to pay the appellant a total compensation of Rs. 80,475/- with interest.
B.M. Lal, J.
1. Bhagchand (deceased), aged 18 years, died due to electric current. His mother Gindiya Bai brought an action against the M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.P.E.B.') and its officers claiming damages of Rs. 80,475/- under the Fatal Accidents Act.
2. The short facts leading to this appeal are that the deceased, who was aged about 18 years, was a resident of village Khapa, Tehsil Lakhnadon, District Seoni; on the day of occurrence, i.e., 30.6.1983, near village Bhimgarh the deceased was grazing cattle at a place popularly known as Zero Tank Chain; when the deceased was passing 10 feet away from the stay-wire of the transformer, which was installed by the respondents, he received a fatal current and died on the spot; the stay-wire was fixed for the purpose of giving support to the transformer poles. The matter was reported to the police station Chhapara.
3. The appellant after serving a notice vide Exh. P-l, dated 18.1.1984, filed a suit on the ground, inter alia, that the respondents had not properly maintained the transformer with due care and caution, on account of which the deceased received fatal accident and succumbed to it. The appellant was dependent on the deceased and after his death her life became miserable. In support of her claim, it was submitted that the deceased used to earn Rs. 8/- per day as wages, out of which he spent Rs. 5/- on the family and Rs. 3/- on himself. Accordingly, she claimed vide paras 8, 9 and 10 of the plaint, total damages amounting to Rs. 80,475/-. She has also prayed for other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. The respondents, however, while denying their liability to pay compensation, emerged with a plea that on account of nonpayment of electric charges by the consumers, i.e., the Irrigation Department of the State Government, which is operating the Upper Banganga Project and others, supply of electricity was disconnected by removing three grips of the main switch from the said transformer on 28.6.1983. It was further averred that the Assistant Engineer inspected the spot on 1.7.1983, i.e., one day after the alleged incident and submitted a report to the Superintending Engineer. According to the inspection report, it was found that three grips of the main switch were removed and uninsulated copper wire was fitted on the line called L.T. line which was going towards Banganga river. This uninsulated copper wire was wrapped in P.V.C. From this unauthorised arrangement, employees of the Upper Banganga Project had taken illegal connection upto their search tower. This naked wire was touching the stay-wire of the transformer pole thereby discharging electricity through the stay-wire and in this way the accident occurred.
5. The trial court found that the respondents were negligent, vide issue No. 2 and as such awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,475/-, against which this appeal has been filed by the claimant, mother of the deceased and the respondents have also preferred a cross-objection.
6. Before discussing the point in issue involved in this appeal, at the very outset it may be stated that the burden is on the defendants to show that all necessary precautions were taken and observed by them.
7. In Manohar Lal Sobha Ram Gupta v. M.P.E.B. 1975 ACJ 494 (MP) and Nirmala Thirunavukkarasu v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 1984 ACJ 210 (Madras), it has been ruled that the burden of proof that there had been no negligence or carelessness is on the Electricity Board.
8. In the light of these decisions it is to be seen how far the respondents have discharged their burden of proving that all necessary and due precautions have been taken by them.
9. In this respect Annalal Belvanshi, DW 1, Divisional Engineer, has stated that the Irrigation Department had not paid the electricity bills and therefore on 28.6.1983 three grips from the transformer were removed and electric supply was closed. However, in para 14 of his statement he state
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
