(1.) This First Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order passed in Title Suit (Fatal Accident) No. 2 of 1995 by the learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur dated 31.1.1996 dismissing the suit and thereby rejecting the claim of the appellants for compensation on account of death of one Dilip Banik, husband and father of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
(2.) The necessary facts for deciding the appeal are as follows : - The appellant No. 1, viz. Smti. Maya Rani Banik filed the claim petition in the court of the learned District Judge, South Tripura which was registered as T.S. (Fata Accident) No. 2 of 1995 alleging, inter alia, that the claimant is the widow of deceased Dilip Banik who died due to electrocution on 8.10.1992 while he was by chance came in contact with the barbed wire fencing of the electrical transmitter located near Jagannath Bari, Udaipur as the said barbed wire fencing was charged by electric current due to negligence of the respondents. It is also alleged that there is no provision under the law that the fencing be charged with the electric power and the said fencing is put for safety of the people. It is further stated that the victim Dilip Banik was removed to Hospital immediately after the incident and the Doctor opined that the cause of the death was due to electric shock. A case for un-natural death was registered at R.K. Pur Police Station on the same very day and it was reported finally indicating that it was a case of accidental death and hence, no criminal liability arises. In the premises aforesaid, the said suit was filed claiming a compensation for a sum of Rs. 10,64,000 on the basis of the allegation that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to flagrant violation of the safety measurement to be adopted by the defendant-respondents.
(3.) The defendant-respondents submitted their joint written statement denying the claim of the appellants alleging, inter alia, that the claim petition is not maintainable; that there is no cause of action; that on 8.10.1992 or before or after the day of the accident no call in respect of the electrical charging of the barbed wire fencing the Sub-Station was recorded in the office call book and the claimant-appellants did not inform about the alleged incident to the respondents before filing the case; that the Sub-Station in question was not in the main road but approximately 20'ft away from the main road; that all safety devices were considered at the time of the said installation. Further, the defendant-respondents denied the case of the claimant-appellants in toto and also denied that the deceased was 34 years old or his monthly income was Rs. 2,000 as claimed by the claimant-appellants.