IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH XOBJC-3-C-1998 Reserved on: 20.08.2025 Pronounced on:25.08.2025 Punjab State Electricity Board .....Appellant VERSUS Ajmer Kaur and Another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Y.P.Khullar, Advocate for the appellant (through video conferencing)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate for the LRs of respondents.

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, ‘PSEB’) against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby the appeal of the respondents/plaintiffs was accepted, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 02.11.1993 was set aside, and the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed. Cross-objections have also been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking enhancement of compensation.

Brief Facts

2. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking recovery of damages on account of the death of one Piara Singh, aged about 35 years, who is stated to have died on 6.11.1988 after suffering an electric shock. The respondents/plaintiffs alleged that the deceased was unmarried and issueless, and that he was contributing ₹1000 per month from his earnings of ₹2000 to them.

3. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, Piara Singh along with Sant Ram and others was engaged in repairing the bore of a tubewell situated in village Barsalpur. They pleaded that the electric wires of the Punjab State Electricity Board were passing overhead in contravention of rules, that such wires had become loose due to negligence of the Board, and that current passed into the iron pole being used for the repair, resulting in both Piara Singh and Sant Ram receiving electric shocks and dying on the spot. They accordingly claimed compensation of ₹1,00,000/- on account of death of Piara Singh, being his legal heirs.

4. The defendant-PSEB contested the suit, asserting that the tubewell in question did not belong to Piara Singh but to one Gurdev Singh. It was pleaded that the wires were intact, at a height of 20 feet, and not defective. The accident occurred, according to the appellant/defendant, because the deceased and his companions, while drilling a new bore, lost control over a metallic pipe which accidentally touched the live wires. The appellant/defendant asserted that had the deceased informed the Board, the supply could have been switched off and the accident avoided. The Board, therefore, denied any negligence.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication:

1. Whether Piara Singh died on account of electric shock and the plaintiffs being his heirs are entitled to compensation? If so, how much? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

OPD.

5. Relief.

Findings of the Trial Court

6. In order to prove their case, the respondents/plaintiffs examined Chajja Singh (PW1), Jaswant Singh (PW2), Ashok Kumar, Draftsman (PW3), Dr. Rekha Mittal (PW4), Sher Singh (PW5), and tendered a site plan (Ex. P1), copy of postmortem report (Ex.P2), and power of attorney (Ex.P3). The appellant/defendant examined Charan Singh Boparai, Junior Engineer (DW1).

7. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court concluded that the evidence of the defendant, which was based upon official records, was convincing. It held that Piara Singh was repairing the tubewell when the metallic pipe, on being uplifted, accidentally touched the live wires overhead. He received an electric shock and died due to his own negligence. Accordingly, finding no negligence on the part of the PSEB, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 02.11.1993.

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court

8. The appellants/plaintiffs prefe