HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellantsHaryana State Electricity Board now UHBVN along with its official functionaries against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2005 passed by District Judge, Karnal whereby judgment and decree dated 31.08.2002 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Karnal was reversed and suit of the plaintiff was decreed for a recovery of Rs.2 lac against the defendants/appellants with costs. It was also ordered that in case defendants/appellants fail to make payment of the decretal amount within three months of the passing of the judgment and decree, plaintiff shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till final recovery. However, court fee payable on the decretal amount was held to be first charge over the compensation as the suit was filed as an indigent person by the plaintiff.

(2.) Plainiff-Santosh filed suit in question with the averments that on 22.02.1995 at about 10.00 a.m., she went to the fields of Balbir Singh and Pal Singh for collecting fodder grass. She covered her head with chuni because of rain. Suddenly a hanging wire from electricity pole in the field touched her head. She tried to remove the wire with her hand and got heavy shock due to which her right hand and left leg got burnt. She also received multiple grievous injuries. She was rescued by Bal Singh and Rishi Pal. Plaintiff was removed to Civil Hospital, Karnal and from there she was referred to PGIMS Rohtak, where she remained admitted for 5-6 months i.e. from 22.02.1995 to 26.05.1995. Plaintiff became permanently disabled as a result of amputation of right arm. Medical Board found her permanent disability to the extent of 80%. The matter was reported to the Police, but no action was taken. Plaintiff incurred huge medical expenses on her treatments. Since the defendants/appellants were negligent in maintaining the electricity installations, damages were sought by the plaintiff against them.

(3.) Suit was contested by the defendants on the ground of maintainability, cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits it was pleaded that no intimation was ever received by the office of defendants regarding accident as alleged. While denying the remaining averments dismissal of the suit with costs was prayed for.