JAGDISH Vs. NARESH SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE solitary issue which crops up for consideration in the present first appeal filed at the instance of unsuccessful plaintiffs, viz. , husband, sons and daughter of the deceased Basanti Devi, who died of electrocution, is whether the Trial Court was justified in non-suiting them on the ground that the negligence of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "mpeb") was not proved in the suit for damages.

(2.) THE relevant facts leading to aforesaid controversy is that on the fateful night of 10-7-1997 when the said Basanti Devi came out of her house, came in contact with the live electric wire, in which the electricity was flowing and the electric shock received by Basanti Devi, resulted in her death. A damage suit was filed in the Court of District Judge Bhind, registered as Civil Suit No. 9a/97 ED and a neighbour Naresh Soni and the Madhya Pradesh Electricity board were impleaded as the defendants. The averments were that Naresh Soni had in clandestine manner indulged in pilferage of the electricity and the wire which he used for siphoning the electricity had fallen down in the night and basanti Devi came in the contact unaware. It was also alleged before the Trial court that the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board was under an obligation to maintain properly the electric wires and to prevent it from any accidental fall, having failed in its statutory duty to maintain the same which resulted in the aforesaid accident. A total compensation of Rs. 4,85,800/- was accordingly claimed against the respondents/defendants. The liability was denied by both the respondents. In the said suit, parties led their evidence.

(3.) THE Trial Court in its judgment rendered on 15-11-2000 held that under law of torts, the parties who claims damages is under an obligation to prove the negligence. It was held that since the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to discharge the aforesaid burden in proving the negligence of the respondents, the plaintiffs were non-suited. That being aggrieved of the aforesaid dismissal of suit, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal as indigent person.