U P RAJYA VIDYUT PARISHAD Vs. CHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question that arises in this defendants appeal is whether the lower appellate court committed any error of law in decreeing the suit by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur.

(2.) Shri S. P. Mehrotra the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the approach of the appellate court and urged that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was erroneously applied without setting aside the finding recorded by the trial court that the deceased was negligent in collecting 'kanda' (fuel) from beneath a place where high voltage wire was running and tn any case the amount of compensation awarded was excessive. Shri Ashok Gupta the learned counsel who had filed caveat defended the order and urged that the appellate court was not only correct in law but it acted leniently in awarding meagre amount as compensation.

(3.) Before discussing the principle of res ipsa loquitur and whether it was correctly applied by the appellate court, to the facts of this case. 1 am constrained to say that the Court below having awarded only Rs. 60,000 for the death of plaintiff No. 1's wife and mother of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6, due to coming into contact with high voltage live wire of 11,000 volts maintained by U, P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow (in brief Board), the Board would have been well advised to let the matter rest.