KRISHANA DEVI Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff No.1 is the widow of late Sh.Rambhaj. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are her children. Plaintiff No.5 is the mother of Sh.Rambhaj. These plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of Rs.10 lacs impleading Haryana State Electricity Board as defendant No.1 and M/s Rajdhani Sales as defendant No.2. The amount is claimed by way of damages on account of loss of life of Sh.Rambhaj who was an employee of defendant No.1 and died in an accident which occurred in the premises of defendant No.2. The facts as mentioned in the plaint may now be stated in brief.

(2.) Defendant No.1 which is established by Government of Haryana to generate and supply electricity in the State of Haryana. One of its electricity generation plant is at Panipat. Defendant No.2 is doing the business of manufacturing of various types of gases including H-2 gas which is required in the thermal plant. The case set out in the plaint is that defendant No.1 had deputed Sh.Rambhaj to Delhi on or about 5/10/1988 to the factory premises of defendant No.2 for collection of H-2 gas for Panipat Thermal Plant since the same was required for some emergency work. When Sh.Rambhaj was in the premises of defendant No.2 for the aforesaid purpose, there was an explosion of gas cylinder in the factory of defendant No.2 on 6/10/1988 and as a result whereof Sh.Rambhaj died on the spot. He is survived by the plaintiffs. He was on duty when the explosion took place. There was no fault of Sh.Rambhaj when he got killed while on duty. The plaintiffs approached the defendant no.1 several times to pay compensation but nothing was paid. Sh.Rambhaj was a Junior Engineer aged only 42 years and was drawing salary of Rs.2,798.50 paisa and still had 18 years of service ahead of him. He would have earned much more than he was earning at the time of his death. His untimely death caused mental shock and agony to the plaintiffs who have almost come on road and are living at the mercy of their close relatives with no source of income or livelihood. The accident occurred due to negligence of defendants. It is also stated that the defendant No.2 was fully conscious of the hazardous and inherently dangerous nature of H-2 gas which had been stored in their plant. The activities of the defendant No.2 and are potential threat to the health and safety of persons working in the factory, the person residing in the surrounding area and those who are near the site of the factory. The manufacturing plant of the defendant No.2 at their aforesaid factory was old and dilapidated. The defendant No.2 has singularly failed to maintain these plants property and provide requisite safety standards having regard to the inherently dangerous nature of the products manufactured and stored therein. The defendants were fully aware of the shortcoming in the plant of defendant No.2 and the hazardous nature of their activities. It is further stated that the defendants through their employees/agents were negligent for not taking adequate safety measures to prevent any such mishap which took the life of Sh.Rambhaj. The defendants employees/agents did not maintain safety standards as required by law. The defendant No.2 was also negligent in failing to maintain the plant properly. The conduct of the defendants was in fact reckless and callous and they failed to maintain it properly and due to hazardous nature of their activities and the inadequate safety measures, there was an explosion resulting in death of Sh.Rambhaj. It is also stated that irrespective of the question of negligence of the defendants, the defendants have absolute liability in the matter. The defendants being engaged in hazardous and inherently dangerous industry which poses a threat to the health and safety of the persons employed, it becomes the absolute and non-delegable duty of the defendants to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of their activities. The defendant No.2 being engaged in manufacturing and storing activities of H-2 gas is required to compensate and indemnify all those who suffer on account of carrying of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on safely or negligently. It is further stated that had Sh.Rambhaj remained in service, he would have earned Rs.6.00 lacs. The plaintiffs have suffered torture, mental agony and tension for which a further sum of Rs.4.00 lacs by way of damages is claimed. This is how the suit is valued at Rs.10.00 lacs. Interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit is also claimed.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 1(a) have filed the written statement stating that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against them. They have also not mentioned as to whether the plaintiffs received any compensation under the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It is further admitted that Sh.Rambhaj was deputed by them on 6/10/1988 to bring H-2 gas from the factory of defendant No.2. It is also admitted that he died due to an explosion in the H-2 gas factory of defendant No.2. However, it is denied that the accident occurred due to negligence of defendants 1 and 1(a) or that defendants 1 and 1(a) were fully aware of shortcoming in the plant of defendant No.2. It is stated that to provide adequate safety measures for preventing any mishap and to maintain safety standards as required by law were the responsibility of-defendant No.2, and therefore, defendants 1 and 1(a) are not liable to make any payment. It is also stated that the defendants 1 and 1(a) have made the following payments to the plaintiffs: