STATE OF J AND K Vs. MURSA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 25th July, 2000, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Ramban, in a Civil Suit, titled as 'Mst. Mursa Begum and Ors. v. State File No. 17/Civil, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

(2.) IT is necessary to notice the brief facts of the case herein, the womb of which, has given the birth to the instant appeal.

(3.) IT is averred in the plaint that the deceased, Abdul Rashid, aged 35 years, was only bread earner of their family and plaintiffs/respondents were dependent on him. In the year 1993, the power supply was disconnected to the village of the plaintiffs/respondents from March, 1993 to 20.07.1993. The defendant/appellant without any information or notice to the concerned villagers/consumers connected power supply. On the unfortunate day, the deceased, Abdul Rashid, who was sitting in the Varandah of his house, got electrocuted, because the service line fell upon him. The FIR was lodged on 21.07.1993 in Police Station, Batote, being No. 15. The appellant/defendant/department assured the plaintiffs/respondents that the compensation will be paid to them, but the defendant failed to make the compensation and they were constrained to file a civil suit for compensation to the amount of Rs. 1,90,000/ -. The appellant/defendant has also filed the written statement. The following issues came to be framed on 02.01.1997: (1) Whether Abdul Rashid deceased husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of the plaintiffs' No. 2 to 5 minors died on 20.7.1993 because of electrocution as the electric department Batote charged the electric supply without information and notice to the villagers of Dharamoon, Batote, Teh. Ramban when the electric line and poles had fallen in March, 1993 and the power had been disconnected to the village with effect from March, 1993 to 20.7.1997, thus the death of Abdul Rashid has been caused because of the negligence of the electric department? O.P.P. (2) Whether the electric department had assured the plaintiff No. 1 that reasonable compensation will be paid to her thus she did not lodged any criminal case, if so, what is its effect? O.P.P. (3) What was earning capacity of the deceased per month and to what amount of compensation, the plaintiffs are entitled to? O.P.P. (4) Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC has been served upon the Chief Secretary of J&K; State by the plaintiff on 7.2.1994? O.P.P. (5) Whether the suit is not maintainable for the reason that the plaintiffs have not specified the person negligent in the case and whether state is not liable for the vicarious liability of his employee? O.P.D. (6) To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?