EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. ZUBEDABAI IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Executive Engineer, Jamnagar Division, Gujarat Electricity Board has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgement and decree dated 2.4.1984 passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge (SD) Jamnagar in special Civil Suit No. 57 of 1980. The learned Judge has partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff with proportionate cost. As per decree, the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,32,800/(Rs. One Lac thirty two thousand eight hundred only) from the defendant G.E.B. by way of compensation with running interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realisation.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- 2.1 Smt. Subedabai Ibrahim Plaintiff no. 1 is the widow of deceased Ibrahim Haji and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of deceased Ibrahim Haji. The defendant is the principal officer of the Gujarat Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred as "GEB" ) Jamnagar and GEB is carrying on the business of supplying electricity in the State and for that purpose, they install electric poles and on this poles, they install electric live wires. 2.2 The plaintiffs filed a suit against defendant for damages. It was contended in the plaint that the defendant has given electric connection to the agricultural lands of Khambhalia town and for that purpose, they have installed electric poles at different places. The agricultural lands vadi of deceased has been situated in the sim of Khambhalia. The deceased has put up wire fencing surrounding vadi for protecting his crops of his vadi. That the defendants have installed electric pole just adjacent to the wire fencing of the vadi of deceased Ibrahim Haji Kasam and from that, the pole the electric live wire has been fixed for supplying to agricultural lands consumers. The electric pole and wires are still just adjacent to the vadi of deceased Ibrahim Haji Kasam. That the electric supply of 220 to 440 Km. is being supplied through the live wire. The live wire is dangerous to the human life, therefore, it is the duty of the defendant to take proper care of that live wire so that it may not fall down or do not cause any injury to any person or the property of anybody. The live wire were disconnected from the electric pole which was installed just adjacent to the wire fencing of deceased's vadi on 31.8.1978. The disconnected wire was hanging and it came into contact of the wire fencing of deceased and therefore, electrical supply was there in the wire of the plaintiff's vadi. The deceased Ibrahim Haji Kasam carried on his agricultural work in his vadi and he was carrying on repairing work of his hedge and wire fencing. At that time, he came into contact of wire fencing in which the electric supply was there which could not be seen by the deceased and due to this contact with live wire, deceased Ibrahim met with an unfortunate instant death on the spot. It was the duty of the defendant to see that no such incident may happen and for that it has to put guard below live wire but, no such arrangement was made by the defendants. Due to this omission on the part of the defendant, deceased came in contact with the live wire and he was electrocuted and met with an unfortunate instant death on 31.8.1978 at about 3.30 p.m. The deceased died due to the negligence of the defendant. The age of the deceased was 37 years at the time of his death and he might have survived for 70 years and could have maintained his family for many years. That the deceased had agricultural lands as well as one 'galla' in vegetable market at Khambhalia. Thus he was earning Rs.15,000=00 to 20,000=00 per year out of the said agricultural lands and galla and therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to claim Rs.3,00,000=00 as the compensation, but they have limited their claim up to the extent of Rs.1,50,000=00 towards the compensation. 2.3 The defendant GEB has resisted the suit by filing its written statement Ex. 11. It was contended by the defendant that the suit of the plaintiffs is neither true nor legal or bonafide. It was contended that it is an admitted fact that the defendant has installed electric poles of 220 to 440 k.w. and defendant has got his office at Khambhalia and there it has installed electrical poles in the sim of village Khambhalia. It was contended in the reply that the defendant is taking care of the electric poles of its office. It was denied that deceased died due to the electrocution in his vadi on dated 31.8.1978. It was also denied that the deceased died due to negligence of defendant and therefore, the defendant was not liable to pay the amount of compensation as prayed. It was also contended that deceased was not died due to electrocution and therefore, no postmortem was made and moreover, the plaintiffs have not given any notice regarding death of deceased to the defendant and they have not declared death any where, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to get any amount of compensation from the defendant, thus, suit of the plaintiff being false, frivolous and it is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On behalf of the plaintiffs, brother of deceased Ibrahim, Gani Haji Kasam and neighbour of deceased Zakar Sakur were examined at Ex. 37 and Ex. 53 respectively. With regard to documentary evidence at Ex. 29, the plaintiffs have produced all police papers in connection with death of deceased and other documents in support of the case. On behalf of defendant, one Bharatkumar Bhailalbhai Shah - Doctor and Deputy Engineer of GEB Shri Dilkhus Karamshibhai Bhadiniya were examined at Ex. 62 and 69 respectively.