M. P. E. B. vs Bhagwatilal - 1983 Supreme(MP) 712

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : K.K. Gupta and V.K. Dubey.
For the Respondent: O.P. Tripathi.

Headnote:(1) Tort – deceased electrocuted by over – hanging live electric wire – defendant's employees found negligent in erecting poles and fixing wires – defendant is liable for compensation.
       (2) Appeal – against amount of compensation – compensation not too excessive – interference, not called for.
        Short Note
       1. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court committed an error in holding that the death of the deceased Champalal was caused on account of the negligence of the employees of the defendant and further erred in awarding Rs. 23,000/ – as damages to the respondents.
       2. It is not disputed that the deceased Champalal died of electrocution by an over hanging live wire in his field. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record the trial Court held that high tension wire and low tension wire were fixed on the same pole and that too at a short distance. It is further held that there was no necessity of fixing both types of wire on the same pole and that the employees of the defendant were negligent in so fixing the two types of wire on the same pole. It is not disputed that if a high tension wire and a low tension wire, for some reason, come into contact with each other there is a greater discharge of high voltage electricity in the law tension wire and this results in sparking and that frequent sparking would melt the low tension wire with the consequence that eventually it would get snapped. The trial Court further found that the defendant's employees were negligent in erecting electric poles at a distance of more than 700 – 750 feet from each other and that the normal distance between to poles should not have been more than 225 feet. The trial Court further held that there was a short circuit followed by breakage of low tension wire because of the erection of the electric poles at such a longer distance. From the report Ex.P/5 – A submitted by the Divisional Engineer, Dhar Division of M.P. Electricity Board it is clear that the low tension wire had snapped and it was the cause of the accident. It is also found that there was no storm of such a great velocity from which it can be said that it was an inevitable accident. The trial Court further held that there was negligence on the part of the employees of the defendant inasmuch as there was a wrong use of fuse wires and the electric line on the main switch did not fuse despite the short circuit and the supply of electricity continued even after the electric line had broken. Another act of negligence on the part of the defendant which was found by the trial Court was that the electric wires which frequently got snapped off were merely reunited and not replaced by them. It was further held that safety – guard wires were not put by the employees of the defendant. Lastly, it was held that the employees of the defendant were negligent in not doing the ear – thing properly. The trial Court therefore, held that the death of the deceased Champalal was caused on account of the above acts of commission and omission on the part of the employees of the defendant, which amounted to negligence and therefore, the defendant was liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs on account of the death of the deceased Champalal.
       3. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out that the finding recorded by the trial Court on appreciation of evidence on record is not justified. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the said finding recorded by the trial judge.
       4. The next question that arises for determination is whether the trial Court committed an error in awarding Rs. 23,000/ – as damages to the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that the deceased Champalal was earning between Rs. 5,000/ – to Rs. 7,000/ – per year apart from his income from agriculture. Champalal was about 30 years of age at the time of his death. He was maintaining his family consisting of himself, his widow, four children and his aged parents. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the award of Rs. 23,000/ – as compensation to the four children of the deceased is too excessive justifying interference in appeal. It is well settled that in an appeal against award of compensation on account of death of the deceased caused by the negligence of the defendant or his employees, the appellate Court will not interfere in the quantum of compensation unless it is made out that the amount awarded is too excessive or too low. We, therefore, see not reason to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court. Appeal dismissed.