MANOHARLAL GUPTA Vs. MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their suit for recovery of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.

(2.) The facts are that the deceased Dharamwati Bai was the wife of Mano-harlal Gupta, plaintiff No. 1 aged 32 years, and mother of plaintiffs 2 and 3, Ramesh Kumar aged 10 years and Brijmohan aged 3 years. The family lived in Ram Nagar Ward, Raipur. On 2nd October 1968 at about 6.30 p.m. Dharamwati Bai went to a nearby tap to fetch water in a pitcher. While she was returning to her house her foot came in contact with a live electric wire and she got electrocuted and died. It appears that a naked copper wire used for conducting high voltage electric energy had snapped between two poles and the deceased came in contact with one of the ends of this wire and died. The plaintiffs instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for recovery of Rs. 25.000 as damages on the ground that the defendant, the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, was negligent in not taking proper precautions for the maintenance of the elec ric line and for the safety of the passers-by. The defendant in its written statement denied the allegation of negligence. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendant.

(3.) It is not disputed before us that the accident happened because the copper wire conducting high tension electric energy had snapped and the deceased came in contact with the live wire which touched the ground, Rama Rao (D.W. 1), who is an employee of the defendant, went on the spot after receiving information of the accident In examination-in-chief he stated that according to his enquiry he found that the wire had been cut or damaged by string used for flying kite. In paragraph 5 of his cross-examination he, however, admitted that there was, in fact, no enquiry as to the cause of the accident and that he did not make any report excepting what is contained in Ex. D-1. Ex. D-1 does not make any reference to any enquiry or as to the reason how the wire had snapped and the accident happened.