KALIBAI Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 5-B of 1984, passed by A. D. J. to the Court of District Judge, Jhabua, on 9. 10. 1985, whereby he was pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.

(2.) THE suit of the appellant was for the damages for the death of Kal Singh, who died due to electrocution, by an electric line of 11 KV H. T. Power, on 1. 10. 1983 when the deceased Kal Singh along with two or three others was coming on foot from the village Nava Pada to Dedla. That during his walk, when he came near Mokhada Dedla, loose wires of high voltage power line were hovering over the road and current was passing. It is stated that a pole holding this line had fallen down two days prior to the date of incident and due to callousness and negligence on the part of the respondents, wires were lying on the road and since the officials of the defendant did not put off the line, caused danger to the public life. There was no board of caution, nor any other sign was placed. While passing on the road, deceased Kal Singh came into contact with the live wire and died on the spot. Wires were lying uninsulated contrary to law. It is stated in the application as also in evidence that the deceased was only 25 years of age and was hale and hearty. He was earning Rs. 500/- per month by doing labour work.

(3.) LEARNED trial Judge after raising necessary issues and taking evidence, held that the death of Kal Singh took place because of electrocution by the loose wires lying on the road, while he was crossing the road. Learned Judge also held that the wires were lying near the road. It was also held that the wires were uninsulated. He also held that the pole had fallen down on the date of incident and the guarding system was not proper and it was very unsafe there. It was also held that the defendant did not make any effort to put off the live wire to discontinue the current. It was also held that it was gross negligence on the part of the employees of the respondent, but holding that the income of the applicant was Rs. 300/- out of which he could have spent Rs. 200/- on the family, on proper calculation, the loss of the family of the deceased Kal Singh was assessed to Rs. 43,000/ -. But unreasonably, the learned Judge held that it was an avoidable hazard, not having been avoided by Kal Singh, the family is not entitled to any relief.