HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 158/2011

1.

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Assistant Engineer

Rural, Jhunjhunu

2.

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Executive Engineer,

Jhunjhunu

3.

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Managing Director,

Ajmer

----Appellants

Versus

1.

Smt. Sumitra Devi W/o Satveer Singh, D/o Late Bhura, R/o

Devipura, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu

2.

Satveer Singh, S/o Shishpal Singh, R/o Devipura, Tehsil and

District Jhunjhunu

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Raunak Singhvi

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Waseem Ahmed Qureshi for

Mr. Pradeep Choudhary

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON

: 31/03/2022

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON

: April _12^th, 2022

BY THE COURT:

REPORTABLE

1.

This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the

judgment and decree dated 27-11-2010 passed by the Additional District

Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu, in Suit No.105/2008, whereby and

whereunder decreeing the suit claiming compensation under the Indian

Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 allowed compensation Rs.3,00,000/- to plaintiffs

against the appellant AVVNL on account of death of their son due to

electrocution.

(2 of 15)

[CFA-158/2011]

2.

The facts of the case are that respondent plaintiffs (hereafter `the

plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit claiming compensation on account of accidental

death of their young son Maniram, aged 17 years, who died at the spot on

11-11-2007 at 7.00 PM because of electrocution, while he was working in

agricultural field. It was averred that 11000 KV line was going over their

agricultural land and lines were not properly insulated, wires were hanging

at low level and loose, and due to which the deceased Maniram while

carrying pipe for irrigation in the fields suffered electric current and died.

FIR in this regard was also registered and investigation was conducted. It

was averred that the deceased Maniram was a student of 12

th class and sport

person of national level and had participated in national wrestling

competition at Delhi, representing the state of Rajasthan and won the same,

and in Secondary class he was meritorious. After the fatal accident of

deceased the wire was broken and sparking continued all the night, but the

concerned department did not pay any heed. As such alleging negligence on

the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of

Rs.48,00,000/-.

3.

On issuing notices appellants-defendants (hereafter `the defendants’)

filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and stated

that wires were in good condition and at a height of 20 ft. However, they

(3 of 15)

[CFA-158/2011]

admitted the fact of accident and did not disputed the factum of death of

deceased because of electrocution. It was stated that the defendants did not

receive any complaint regarding faulty electric lines and it was the duty of

plaintiffs to take precaution while working nearby electric lines and no

liability could be shifted upon defendants.

4.

On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed five issues.

Plaintiffs examined seven witnesses and exhibited 30 documents.

Defendants examined two witnesses and exhibited four documents. The trial

court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties.

Plaintiffs proved their case that the deceased died due to negligence on the

part of respondent AVVNL in maintaining electric line of 11000 KV as the

same were loose and hanging at a height of 8 ft only below the required

height of 20 ft. Defendants witnesses although claimed that electric lines

were proper and at the height of 20 ft., but in their cross examination they

admitted that they did not visit the place of incident. Nor they produced any

record in this regard. They even did not produce the list of employees who

were responsible for maintenance of electric lines. They came to know about

the acc