THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. SANJUBALA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Cuttack in R.F.A. No. 120 of 2012. The respondent as the plaintiff filed C.S. (III) No. 23 of 2009 claiming the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of death of her husband due to electrocution which is said to have been taken place on 01.10.2009. The trial court has directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 3,21,000/- with P.I. and F.I. at the rate of 6% per annum as compensation to the plaintiff with effect from the date of institution of the suit. The defendants challenged the said judgment and decree by carrying an appeal when the plaintiff came up with a cross objection praying for enhancement of the quantum of compensation. The lower appellate court while refusing to interfere with the finding of the trial court so far as the saddling of liability for payment of compensation by the defendant is concerned together with the finding as regards the negligence of the defendant holding those to have been the outcome of just and proper appreciation of evidence, however viewing the facts and circumstances of the case and referring to a few decisions nonetheless has enhanced the compensation to a sum of Rs. 5,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment as against the claim of the plaintiff for grant of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that on 01.10.2009 around 3 PM her husband (deceased) was on his way to the nearby paddy field of village Biswanathpur to collect grass for his buffaloes and it is said that while so proceeding he came in contact with the live electric wire lying insulated hanging from a tree and met instantaneous death. It is the further case of the defendant that such incident occurred due to utter negligence of the defendant that instead of taking overhead live electric wire over the poles and by fixing those with proper insulation those were fixed in a dangerous manner such as to invite any untoward incident at any time. It is said that the death of the husband of the plaintiff was on account of negligence on the part of the defendant in properly maintaining the live electric wires. Asserting the age of the deceased to be 49 years and that he was maintaining his livelihood by doing his milk and ghee business, the plaintiff's case is that the income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- per month and that he died leaving behind his widow and two sons who were dependant on him. The plaintiff, therefore advanced the claim of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest.

(3.) The defendants in their written statement denied the negligence and defective maintenance of the live electric wire on their part. Though they admitted the death to be due to electrocution, it is denied that the same was on account of their negligence. They have come out with the positive of the case of negligence on the part of the victim. The fact pleaded by the plaintiff that the live electric wire were fixed on the trees without being fitted on poles have been denied. The age and income of the deceased as pleaded by the plaintiff have also been refuted.