PUSHPABEN Vs. BANSWARA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO BANSWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs' first appeal against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Banswara, dated 19. 12. 62, dismissing their suit for the recovery of Rs. 50. 000 from the defendant-respondents on account of compensation. The suit had been brought under the provisions of the Fatal Accident Act in consequence of the death of Surajmal husband of the plaintiff appellant Smt. Pushpaben and father of the plaintiff-appellants Rajesh Ranjna Kumari and Rakesh, as a result of an electric shock received by Surajmal on account of the negligence of M/s. Banswara Electric Supply Company and its partners.

(2.) IN the plaint filed by the plaintiffs in the court of the Senior Civil Judge on 21-8-60, the plaintiffs set out their case as under - "that the defendants own at Banswara the Electric Power House and they carry on business in the name and style of M/s Banswara Electric Supply Co. " The plaintiffs alleged in general that "the defendants were careless and negligent in carrying out their duties and responsibilities in respect of installing the line, supplying electric power and carrying out the various obligations imposed by law, resulting in irregular supply of current, accidents, stoppage of power and giving rise to many complaints from the Government and the public. " After making such general allegations, the plaintiffs stated their specific case relating to the incident giving rise to the suit, as follows - "that in Banswara the brother of the deceased owns a house at Loharwada Surajpol. At that place the electric wires were kept and continued at such low height by the defendants that the lines were not kept having due regard to the safety of the inhabitants. The brother of the deceased drew the attention of the defendants by sending a petition on 24. 8. 59 for removal of these supply electric wires which were over hanging upon the house. The defendants or their servants did not comply and they also did not take measures of safety which they were bound to take under the Act and they acted carelessly, negligently and in contravention of law which caused the death of the deceased on 27. 8. 1959. " Elaborating the facts in this connection, it was stated, "that the deceased Surajmal s/o Jeychand Mehta had gone to his brother's house on 27 8. 1959 and when he was near the gallery, the defendants' company switched on to supply the electric energy prior to 11 A. M. as a result of which the deceased got the shock of the current from over head supply line and he expired on that account. " It was further stated in this connection that "the timings fixed by the defendant company for the purpose of supplying electric energy and known to the public was 11 A. M. and despite this, the defendants company negligently and carelessly switched on the supply prior to 11 A. M. and caused the death of the deceased. " It was further averred that "the defendants were directly responsible for the death of the deceased, and as such, they are bound to compensate the plaintiffs and liable to pay them the damages. " Claiming Rs. 50,000 as compensation, the plaintiffs stated that "the deceased was a promising young man of 32 years of age and had studied upto matric and was in receipt of a salary of Rs. 400 P. M. and possessed high ranking business ability and in due course his income would have gone to Rs. 1,003 P. M. The plaintiffs were solely dependant on the earnings, care and attention of the deceased and he was spending Rs. 3,500, yearly on their maintenance and that this amount would have gone on increasing every year as a result of his increase in salary. " On 5. 2. 60 the plaintiffs served notice upon the defendants demanding Rs. 50,000 but the defendants refused to pay the amount and gave evasive reply to the notice and hence, the plaintiffs had to file the suit.

(3.) ON issues Nos. 18 to 21, the trial court following the principle laid down in State of Bombay [now Gujarat] vs. Parshottam Kanhaiyalal [2] determined the amount of compensation as Rs. 15,000.