UP POWER CORPORATION Vs. BIJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA LALA, J. :- This appeal has been preferred by the Uttar Pradesh Power corporation Limited, the appellants herein, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 2007 passed by the Civil judge (Senior pivision), Ballia in Original suit No. 266 of 2004, Bijendra Singh v. U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed and compensation to a nine of Rs. 7. 00,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% has been awarded.

(2.) BY consent of the parties, the appeal has been heard on the informal papers, however, upon exchange of affidavits.

(3.) THE respondent, being plaintiff, instituted a suit for damages, being Original Suit no. 266 of 2004 (Bijendra Singh v. U. P. Power Corporation Limited and another), before the appropriate Court on 4th November, 2004 and claimed compensation to a tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of death of his elephant due to electrocution. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that on 10th August, 2003 his elephant was brought to the public place by Mahout (theelephant-driver)and other two persons sitting on his back for attending a religious procession i. e. Mahabiri Jhanda. After completion of procession while the elephant was driven to come back by Mahout and other two persons, a high voltage open wire of electricity of the U. P. Power Corporation limited, which was hanging on the road and current was passing through it, touched the body of either of the persons sitting on the back of elephant and by the shock all the three persons fell down from the elephant but the elephant, whose feet were in touch with the earth, succumbed to death on the spot. Due to aforesaid incident, the plaintiff-respondent, being owner of the elephant,filed the above suit for damages against the defendants-appellants, who flatly denied the cause of accident in the written statement by saying that there was no such wire hanging through which the electricity was passing. This explanation was given by the defendants-appellants with the support of the statement that in case wire breaks and detaches from the line, by automatic mechanism passing of current is stopped. In support of their contention, the defendants-appellants examined a sole witness, who was not eye witness. He deposed that as because one person who was dancing on the back of the elephant came in touch of the wire, on account of which the accident took place. He also stated that he was neither present on the spot nor did he see how the elephant come in touch of electrical wire and further he was also not able to say as to how many days before the accident he saw that line on the spot. On the other hand, in support of the averments in the plaint not only the plaintiff but also two other eye witnesses were examined, who have categorically deposed about cause of the accident. Ultimately, the Court below held that negligence on the part of the defendants-appellants caused the death of elephant, therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff-respondent and accordingly, decreed the suit awarding compensation, as above.