EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. GUDDI DANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 6/9/2018 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Regular Civil Appeal No.38/2018, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 31/10/2017 passed by Fourth Civil Judge, Class-II, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.85/2016, by which the suit filed by the respondent for grant of compensation was decreed.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for compensation on the ground that the deceased Sukhvir Singh was the husband of the respondent. The respondent is a housewife and was being looked after by her husband. It was the case of the plaintiff/respondent that her husband was aged about 38 years and was a hale and hearty person. The husband of the plaintiff was having an old tractor and tanker for the purpose of carrying out agricultural activities. The husband of the plaintiff was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and after the death of her husband, she do not have any source of income. The incident took place on 23/10/2015 in the field of Karan Singh. On the said day, the deceased had gone to the field of Karan Singh for irrigation purposes. After irrigating the field of Karan Singh, when he was collecting the water pipe, then he came in contact with 11 KV live electricity wire which was loosely hanging, as a result of which, he expired. It was further pleaded that the incident took place because of the negligence of the Electricity Department, as the live electric wires were not properly maintained by the appellant. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the entire responsibility of making payment of compensation is on the appellant. It was further mentioned that an information was given to the Police Station Satanwada and Marg No.17/15 was registered and the dead body of the deceased Sukhvir Singh was sent for postmortem and in the postmortem report also the cause of death was found to be electrocution. Because of the untimely death of deceased Sukhvir Singh, the plaintiff has lost her companion as well as she was required to bear the expenses of about 15,000/- for performing the last rites of the deceased and accordingly, the suit for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was filed alongwith 12% interest.

(3.) The appellant filed its written statement and denied the paint averments. It was pleaded by the appellant that the plaintiff and her husband were labourers and the plaintiff is still doing the labour work and she was not dependent upon her husband. Plaintiff has not filed any document to show that her husband was the owner of the tractor and tanker and no document of registration has been filed. The monthly income of the husband of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.15,000/- was also denied. It was claimed that with great difficulties the plaintiff and her husband were earning Rs.2,000/- per month and the husband of the plaintiff has not died due to the negligence of the appellant or due to electrocution. It was further pleaded that the appellant was regularly maintaining 11 KV live wire and the electric wires have been installed at a height of about 18-20 ft. and accordingly, there is no possibility of electrocution in any condition. It was further pleaded that neither the deceased has expired on 23/10/2015 in the field of Karan Singh nor the cause of his death is electrocution. No information was ever given to the appellant.