The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of impleading the Electricity Corporation as a principal defendant in a suit involving negligence in managing the electricity line, and the legal sustainability of a decree passed against the corporation.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

S. Talapatra, J. (Oral)

Heard Mr. P .Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. A. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2012, delivered in Money Appeal No. 24 of 2011 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.5.

3. There is no dispute that in the suit, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Corporation was not a party. But some of its officers namely the appellants No.2 and 3 were arraigned as the defendant in the suit being Money Suit No.43 of 2008, which has been instituted for purpose of realising the damage, quantified at Rs.8,40,000/-. On 24.04.2000 at about 5.30/6.00 a.m. one Sreemati Sarkar, mother-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 came into contact with the live electric wire and she fell down. Seeing her fidgeting, her son namely Ratan Sarkar, husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 rushed to save his mother, Sreemati Sarkar. Ratan Sarkar also got electrocuted and both Sreemati Sarkar and Ratan Sarkar died out of the said electrocution. For recovering the damage for negligence in managing the electricity line, the said suit was filed for realising the said sum of compensation against the appellants No. 2 and 3 and another.

4. By filing the written statement, the defendants, the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and another raised the question of maintainability on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary party. Despite that no attempt even was made by the plaintiffs to add the corporation. There is no dispute that the Managing Director of the Tripura State Electricity Corporation, the Senior Manager, Electrical Kalyanpur Sub Division and Senior Manager, Electrical Teliamura Sub Division were added as the defendants in the suit and they have seriously contested the suit.

5. The suit was decreed awarding the damage at Rs.3,07,200/- and declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the said amount from the defendants. Against the said judgment and decree dated 16.08.2011, delivered in Money Suit No. 43 of 2008, an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC was preferred by the appellants herein. In the said appeal being Money Appeal No. 24 of 2011 the defendant No.1 was not made party. Even though the corporation was not the party in the suit, but the corporation was one of the appellants in the said first appeal.

6. While disposing the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2012, the first appellate court has observed as under :

"11. Ld. Counsel, Mr. G.S. Das incidentally raised another question that the Electricity Corporation was not made[sic] in the original suit, rather the Managing Director was arrayed as defendant. Ld. Counsel, however, could not show any specific law on that point that the Corporation and not it's Managing Director should be made party. Though no specific 'point for decision' was formulated by this court on that point, however, it is incumbent upon the Court not to leave this minor point too untouched as was ventilated by one of the parties. As per provision of rule 2 of Order XXIX of C.P.C., it was obligatory on the part of respondents to serve notice of the corporation upon it's secretary, director or any other principal officer of that corporation and in this case the summons was served upon the Managing Director himself. So, there is no scope for the appellants to take any such plea that just for non-mentioning of name of the Corporation in place of it's Managing Director in the cause title of the plaint, they were prejudiced or that for that reason, the Corporation could not take it's proper defence. Some laxity in ground level pleadings were always adhered to uphold the cause of substantial justice avoiding any sort of pedantic or hyper technical approach in procedural aspects."

Having held thus, the finding of the trial court has been affirmed by the first appella

Click Here to Read the rest of this document