Negligence involves failure to exercise due care, which includes foreseeability of harm, and leads to liability when conduct results in damage.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel for the appellant-Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (for short, TSECL). Also heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent and Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional GA appearing for the respondent-State.

2. Both the appeal and the cross-objection are taken up together since common questions of law are involved.

3. The appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment dated 26.09.2019 and decree dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in connection with case no. Money Suit 14 of 2017.

4. The brief facts of the case, are that, the plaintiff, being the husband of the deceased had filed a Money suit being No. M.S. 14 of 2017 for the death of his wife out of electrocution on 01.04.2017 at about 3 p.m. when she was attaining the age of 45 years. It is stated in the plaint and in course of evidence, as adduced by the plaintiff-husband being corroborated by other two witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) that his deceased wife went to the nearby field to bring the cows and suddenly she came in contact with a lose line of electric wire. She shouted for help and hearing her hue and cry, one Malin Tanti (PW-1) had rushed to the spot. Said Malin Tanti also shouted and hearing his hue and cry some other persons arrived at the spot and somehow managed to save her from the clutches of electric wire and shifted her to Kadamtala PHC and doctor declared her dead and the cause of death was cardiac arrest. On her death, the husband-plaintiff had claimed Rs. 5 lakh as compensation by filing the above noted suit. It is stated that the death of his wife was caused due to sheer negligence on the part of TSECL. It is the plea of the plaintiff that fact of snapping of live electric wire was informed to the department time and again, but, the TSECL had not taken any proper steps.

5. Having summoned, TSECL contested the suit by filing written statement wherein they denied the claim of the plaintiffs and asserted that there was no negligence on the part of TSECL. However, in their written statement as well as in their evidences, the officials of TSECL have stated that after receipt of information of the said accident, the officials had rushed to the spot after switching all the electric connection of the entire area.

6. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings framed issues. Evidences were let in, and thereafter, by its judgment, as stated, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff granting compensation of the sum of Rs. 5,34,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization within 45 days failing which the damages, so awarded, shall be accrued @ 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization thereof. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the appellant-TSECL has preferred the instant appeal before this court. The plaintiff has also filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation out of the damages due to the death of the wife of the plaintiff.

7. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the appellant-TSECL has submitted that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fact that TSECL was in no way negligent behind occurrence of the said accident. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has further contended that the deceased wife of the plaintiff should have to be cautious in her movement in view to go to the grazing field to bring the cows. Learned counsel has also challenged the age and income o