RAMDEVI Vs. M P VIDYUT MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/ plaintiffs have filed this appeal under section 96 of the CPC, for enhancement of the sum decreed by the Ist ADJ, Pichhore district Shivpuri in COS No.5-B/09 vide judgment dated 19/1/2011 whereby their suit for damages and compensation of Rs.3 lacs in respect of electrocution death of Chimanlal Gupta, the husband of appellant No.1 while father of appellant No.2, has been decreed against respondents No.1 to 5 only for the sum of Rs.75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit with a direction to pay such decreetal sum jointly and severally by such respondents.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellants herein being wife and son of deceased Chimanlal by impleading respondent No.6 and 7 the mother and daughter of deceased Chimanlal, have filed the impugned suit for damages and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest and cost contending that on dated 1.4.08 at about 6 O' Clock in the morning said Chimanlal went at the back of his residence to answer the call of nature where due to negligence of the officials of the respondent/ electricity board, the live electricity line of 11 KV being loose was hanging. /Due to such situation, he came into the contact of such hanging electric line and after sustaining the electric current died on the spot. This incident was reported to the Police Chowki Himmatpura, PS Pichhore, on which, a marg intimation was registered under section 174 of the Cr.P.C. After holding the inquiry of such inquest intimation, an offence under section 304-A of the IPC was registered against respondent No.5 Hariram, the Lineman of the respondent-Board. After holding the investigation, he was charge sheeted for his prosecution before the criminal court. Such criminal case is still pending. Before happening the alleged incident, a complaint in writing with the signature of the villagers in the shape of Panchnama was also given to the aforesaid Lineman respondent No.5, inspite of that such wire was not repaired. On account of such negligence, the alleged incident was happened in which aforesaid Chimanlal died and for that respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In further averments it is stated that at the time of death deceased Chimanlal was working as Asst.Teacher in the Govt. Primary School, Gouchoni, Pichhore and after requisite necessary duductions, he was getting Rs.13646/- per month as monthly salary and the appellants as well as respondents No.6 and 7 were dependent on him. On account of his untimely death in the alleged incident, the appellants as well as the respondent No.6 and 7 suffered the mental agony of the incident. Besides this, the appellant No.1 has also lost the company of her husband and they have also lost the earning member. It is further stated that appellants do not have any source of income and, in such premises, the impugned suit initially was filed for Rs.6,00,000/- but subsequently, till the extent of respondent No.6 and 7, the same was reduced upto 3,00,000/- for the present appellants as compensation along with interest as stated above.

(3.) In the written statement of respondent No.4, the material averments of the complaint with respect of the alleged incident have been denied. In additional to it, it is stated that the particulars of respondents No.2,3 and 4 have not been correctly mentioned in the suit. The suit has been filed under collusion with the respondent No.6 and 7, as such, the appellants or respondents No.6 and 7 were not dependent on the income of the deceased. In addition, it is stated that one day earlier to the incident, i.e. on 31.3.08 in the night there was heavy storm so due to such act of God, the insulator got burst consequently the wire was broken and the same was hanging till the next morning. It is further stated that the complaint regarding breaking and hanging of electric wire was not received by the respondents/authorities within time so, in the lack of such information, repairing was not possible and, in such premises, it could not be said that any negligence was committed by the respondent board or its officials in maintaining the aforesaid line. In such premises, it is stated that the respondents-board or its officials are not liable to pay any compensation as prayed by the plaintiffs or respondent No.6 and 7. The inquest report was also lodged on the false averments. The police case was also wrongly registered and respondent No.5 was produced before the court for his prosecution under wrong premises. In addition, it is stated that deceased himself was responsible for the incident because at about 6 O' clock in the morning there was day time and due to his negligence he came into the contact of the live electric wire. So, in such premises, such liability could not be saddled against the respondents. In addition it is stated that deceased was working in the Govt. school as Asst. Teacher but after his death, his terminal benefits of the service, the sum of insurance and the compassionate appointment was also given to his wife. So, in such premises, the appellants are not entitled for any compensation from the respondents/company and its officials. With these averments prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.