REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAMANUJA MUDALI Appellant

V/S

M.GANGAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BROCK V. COPELAND [REFERRED TO]
ILLOT V. WILKES [REFERRED TO]
CF. GREAT NORTHERN RLY. CO. V. HARRISON [REFERRED TO]
BARNES V. WARD [REFERRED TO]
SARCH V. BLACKBURN [REFERRED TO]
BIRD V. HALBROOK [REFERRED TO]
WOOTTON V. DAWKINE [REFERRED TO]
DEGG V. MIDLAND RLY CO. [REFERRED TO]
GRAND TRUNK RY. OF CANADA V. BARNETT [REFERRED TO]
LOWERY V. WALKER [REFERRED TO]
PETRIE V. ROSTREVER [REFERRED TO]
MURLEY V. GROOVE [REFERRED TO]
CF. WILLIAMS V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY CO. [REFERRED TO]
DANE V. CLOYTON [REFERRED TO]
DAVIS V. LISLE [REFERRED TO]
MOURTON V. POULTER [REFERRED TO]
ADDIE V. DUMBRECK [REFERRED TO]
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY CO. V. BATES [REFERRED TO]
LATHOM V. JOHNSON [REFERRED TO]
COFFEE V. ME EVEY [REFERRED TO]
VIDEAN V. BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
DAVIS V. ST. MARY'S DEMOLITION AND EXCAVATION CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
EDWARD V. RAILWAY EXECUTIVE [REFERRED TO]
CONWAY V. GOORGE WIMPOY & CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
BUCKLAND V. GUILDFORRN GAS LIGHT AND COKE CO. [REFERRED TO]
TWINE V. BEAN'S EXPRESS,LTD. [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH RAILWAY BOARD V. HARRINGTON [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF RAILWAY V. M.C. DORMOLT [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONERS OF RAILWAYS V. FRANCIS JOHN QUINLAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming on for hearing on this day the Court delivered the following Judgment:_

(2.) The defendant is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,000/- by way of damages and for costs.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-revision petitioner are the natives of 11 Vazhapandal villages. In the plaint, the plaintiff- respondent has averred that the defendant-revision petitioner herein in his evidence. The evidence of P. W. 2 is that be is cultivating the land of the village Munsif an waran basis and that he bas to cross the river channel to go to that land and that the said river channel is south of the lands of the defendant- revision petitioner herein. The further evidence of P. W. 2 is that he used to go through the land of the defendant-revision petitioner to reach the river channel to divort the river channel water to his lands for irrigation at nights, The specific evidence of P. W. 2 is that on the day in question i. e. 11-4-1979 at 10 P.M while he was going along the river channel he trod upon the live electric wire with the result he got electric shock. The further evidence of P W2 is that for the Protection of his lands the defendant revision petitioner had set up the live electric wire on, river channel. The further evidence o P. W. 2 is that the trod upon the said, electric wire and got electric shock with the result that he was thrown out and that he sustained charred injuries on his legs. The defendant- revision petitioner in his evidence has stated that he did not know anything about the occurrence. P. W. 3 Venkatadri states in his evidence that he went and saw the plaintiff lying down having been thrown out due to electric shock P. W. 1 Dr. A. P. Ramasamy Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital Arni has deposed that it he examined the Plaintiff. P. W. 2 on 12-4-1979 at 3.40 A. M. and found injuries on him which were caused according to him at about 10 P. M. on 11-4-1979due to electric shock, The doctor found the following injuries on the 'person of the Plaintiff-respondent herein :

Click here to view full judgment.

RAMANUJA MUDALI Vs. M GANGAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address