The court established that liability for electrocution arises irrespective of negligence due to the strict liability inherent in the transmission of electricity.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR, J.

This first appeal is filed feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2001 passed in RCS No. 5B/2000 by Ms. Bharati Baghel, Additional District Judge, Badwah, West Nimar granting compensation of Rs. 1,44,000/- to the plaintiffs with interest @ 6% per annum till the date of payment.

2. The plaintiffs Anitabai, Varsha, Reena and Nandkishore had filed civil suit for damages regarding death of husband of Anitabai and father of Varsha, Reena and Nandkishore, namely Ramesh, due to electrocution. It is pleaded in the plaint that on 21.5.1998, Ramesh was returning home after labour job from village Ratanpur. As he reached near agricultural field of Chhitar, he came into contact of live electric wire which had fallen down on the way. Ramesh came into contact of live wires due to darkness and got electrocuted. Ramesh died on the spot. The plaintiffs are dependent on Ramesh. Ramesh was only earning member of the family. He was earning Rs. 100/- per day from carpenter work. The incident was reported to Police Station Badwah. The P.S. Badwah registered unnatural death intimation No. 23 of 1998. The plaintiff claimed damages of Rs. 12,80,000/- jointly and severely from defendants.

3. The defendants denied the plaint averments. It was denied that Ramesh had electrocuted due to negligence on part of defendants.

4. The trial court framed the issues. On completion of the trial, partly allowed the claim vide impugned judgment and decree dated 4.9.2001. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is assailed in the present first appeal on following grounds:

I. The trial court committed gross error in appreciation of evidence. The trial court overlooked important material contradictions in the evidence of plaintiff and wrongly concluded that Ramesh has died due to electric current in the broken electric wires.

II. The material on record shows that electric wires were broken and fallen on the field due to heavy winds and rains. The incident was natural calamity and an act of god beyond human control.

III. The learned trial court did not consider that the defendants did not commit any negligence, they cannot be held responsible for natural calamity.

IV. The decreed amount is unreasonable considering the earning capacity of the deceased in the light of statement of Bag Singh (PW-3).

V. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is illegal, improper and based on surmises and conjectures.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in addition to the facts and grounds mentioned in the appeal memo, referred to the evidence on record and contended that the witness for plaintiff have admitted that there was heavy wind and rains at the time of incident. There was no negligence on the part of defendants. The defendants cannot be held responsible for the incident caused by natural calamity. Learned counsel further contends that death of Ramesh due to electrocution attributable to the negligence of defendants was not proved. Learned trial court committed error in granting the damage to plaintiffs without properly considering the earning capacity of deceased Ramesh.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly established that death of Ramesh was caused by electrocution from broken electric wires. Defendants were responsible for up-keep of the electric wires. They failed to perform their duties, therefore, the trial court did not commit any error in granting damages to the plaintiffs, who were dependent on deceased Ramesh.

7. Heard both the parties. Perused the record.

8. The points for determin