M.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, JABALPUR THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. DITALIBAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2006 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Alirajpur. District Jhabua in Civil Suit No. 3-B/2006, whereby the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was decreed and the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,86,000.00 alongwith interest w.e.f. 7.11.2005 @ of 5% per annum the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit against the appellants alleging that respondent No. 1 is the wife and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are daughters of deceased/Dashriya S/o Fattu. It was alleged that on 9.9.2005 when Dashriya was working in his field, he came in contract with live electrical wires and died on the post. It was alleged that the accident was seen by one Bhuru S/o Somji, who informed the respondent No. 1. Thereafter respondent No. 1 went on spot alongwith brother of deceased. It was found that Dashriya has died because of electrocution. It was alleged that live wires were removed with the help of wooden stick. Further case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was that the cause of death of Dashriya is negligence on the part of appellants. Further case of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was that deceased Dashriya was aged 30 years. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000.00.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellants. It was denied that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of appellants. It was alleged that one Bhursingh @ Bhurasiya was taking the electrical energy from the lines of appellant/board illegally. It was further alleged that Bhurasiya took the wires through the field of deceased. The wires were naked. Because of negligence on the part of Bhursingh @ Bhurasiya, who was stealing the electrical energy, the accident took place.. It was also alleged that a case was registered against Bhurasiya under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that appellant were not negligent. It was also alleged that since there was no carelessness or negligence on the part of appellants, therefore, appellant/Board is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed