MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RAJENDRASHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has been preferred by the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board through Divisional Engineer, Bhind against the judgment and decree dated 30th January 2001 in Civil Suit No. 1A/2000 passed by the First Additional District Judge Bhind (M.P.) and thereby decreed the suit filed by the respondents for recovery of Rs. 1,12,000/- alongwith 6% simple interest from the date of submission of the claim till realisation of the actual payment made to the claimants.

(2.) The facts, in short, relevant for the adjudication of this appeal are that deceased Ram Shankar Jatav on 5th July 1998, died by electrocution after coming into contact with stray wire of the electric pole lying on the road near to his house. The report of the accident was lodged at Police Station and was inquired into. After inquiry, it was found that the death of Ram Shankar was result of direct negligence on the part of the employees of the M.P. Electricity Board for not timely observing the electric wires and poles. Even then, neither compensation nor other monitory advantages were provided by the Board to the claimants/legal representatives of the deceased as a consequence they filed the suit for Rs. 7,25,000/- claiming exemption under Section 35-A of the Court Fees Act against the defendant/appellant. The defence of the appellant is that the deceased himself damaged by breaking the insulator of stray wire resultantly, the support of the electric pole fitted with electric wires formed current with high voltage. It was also suggested that on the fateful day, the storm arose owing to which the electric wires were contacted with each other and the current passed in the stray wire. Another defence taken was that deceased dug the pit for collecting the stems and branches of the particular bushes for making the basket, i.e., a hand-craft. During collection of the branches and stems from the pit near the stray wire of the pole, the deceased came into contact with stray wire and died on the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid defences, it was stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself and the board cannot be held responsible for such of his alleged act. Upon the strength of the pleadings of the parties and the facts and circumstances, the trial court framed issues and after appreciation and analysis of the evidence led by the parties decreed the suit to the extent of 1,12,000/- alongwith 6% simple interest in favour of the plaintiffs of the deceased against the defendant/respondent-Board herein for the tortuous liability which resulted into death of the deceased by virtue of the impugned decree. That is how the appellant is before this court by submitting the appeal.

(3.) The contention put forth on behalf of the appellantBoard is that the judgment and decree under appeal is against the law and the facts on record. It is submitted that the learned trial court erred in not considering the defence in proper perspective that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident death and there was no negligence on the part of the Board or its employees and therefore no vicarious liability can be fastened on the Board under such circumstances. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the award passed against it may be set aside.