SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - JAIPUR BEN
AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
SMT SUMAN AND OTHERS – Respondent
CFA 312/2012



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 312/2012

1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Its Assistant

Engineer, Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Mandawar, District

Jhunjhunu.

2. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Its Executive

Engineer, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu.

3. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Its Director

Hathibhata, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Appellants/Non-Claimants

Versus

1. Smt Suman Devi W/o late Shishupal Singh, aged about 32

years, R/o Deenawa Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu.

2. Aman (Minor) s/o ate Shishupal Singh, aged about 8 years,

R/o Deenawa Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu.through Its Nature

Guardian Mother Smt. Suman Dev W/o Late Shishupal Singh.

3. Doondaram S/o Late Bhairuram, aged about 77 years, R/o

Deenawa Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu.

----Respondents/Claimants

For Appellant(s)

:

Ms. Priya Rastogi for Mr. Ankur

Rastogi

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya

Mr. Anshul Jhakhar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

Order

24/03/2021

With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally

at the stage of order.

Challenge in the present first appeal filed by the

appellants/non-claimants under Section 96 CPC read with Order

41 Rule 1 has been made to the judgment and decree dated

17.02.2012 passed by the Court of Additional District and

Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu (Raj.), in civil suit

(fatal accident) No. 47/2011 (155/2010) (Smt. Suman Devi and

Ors. Vs. AVVNL and Ors.) whereby the Court below awarded

compensation of Rs.14,12,400/- to the respondents/claimants.

(2 of 5)

[CFA-312/2012]

Facts of the case in nutshell are that respondents/claimants

filed a civil fatal accident claim before the Court below against the

present appellants/non-claimants mentioning therein that on

23.04.2010, Shishupal Singh get injured due to electrocution and

thereafter, on 24.04.2010 he died. According to the claimants

Shishupal Singh and his elder brother were raising construction in

their house, which was situated under the High Voltage electric

line. All of sudden, electric broken wire fell on their house and as

such, Shishupal Singh got injuries and due to electrical shock he

died ultimately on the next day. Thus, claimants filed a claim

petition for compensation to the tune of of Rs. 97,97,696/-. The

appellants/non-claimants filed a written statement of denial. On

the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed

four issues. The claimants in support of their case got examined

four witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. The non-claimants in

support of their case got examined two witnesses and exhibited

eight documents. The Court below vide its judgment and decree

dated 17.02.2012 awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.

14,12,400/- to the claimants/respondents. The non-claimants

aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and

decree has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

Learned for the non-claimants argued that Court below has

committed serious error while entertaining the suit under fatal

accident Act. There is no direct evidence either of accident or the

corroboration of the witness about the cause of death of Shishupal

Singh. Learned counsel further submits that after the accident an

inquiry was hold by the appellants’ department. During

investigation and after submission of inquiry report the Inquiry

Officer came to the conclusion that the alleged accident occurred

(3 of 5)

[CFA-312/2012]

due to sole negligence of the deceased. Deceased-Shishupal was

raising construction in the house of his brother which was situated

on agricultural land and so far as construction is concerned neither

any permission nor any NOC was taken/obtained as per electricity

rules. The Court below also came to the conclusion that the

claimants are not dependent on the deceased Shishupal Singh.

Even then, the awardi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top