AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD Vs. RUKMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil first appeal filed by appellant-defendant Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2006 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Suit No.62/2005, whereby the learned trial court awarded compensation to the respondent-plaintiffs to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the presentation of the suit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent plaintiffs Mrs. Rukmani and Mst. Paras filed a suit under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 against the officers of defendant Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- alongwith interest. It was averred in the plaint that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and the father of the plaintiff No.2, late Laxman Lal Ahir, was working in his field situated at Gram Panchayat Pipali Ahiran and at that time while scaring away a Nilgai, he came in contact with an electric wire which was lying in the field after breaking due to short circuit, thus, due to heavy electrocution, Laxman Singh died on the spot. One Chunni Lal found the dead body of Laxman Lal and gave information at the Police Station Kunwaria. It was further averred that the defendants did not properly maintain the electric lines and did not disconnect the current even on there being fault in the line, thus, due to negligence of the defendants and their non performing duties in proper manner, the unfortunate incident occurred. The police in its investigation found the reason of death to be failure of cardio respiratory system due to electric current as per the doctor's report. It is further averred that at the time of death, Laxman Lal was aged 45 years and he was earning Rs.100/- per day, thus, a compensation to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- alongwith interest was claimed.

(3.) The appellant-defendants filed written statement denying the allegations of negligence and not performing the duty in proper manner. It was averred that the suit has been filed on wrong grounds and with incorrect facts. It was also averred that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs directly filed the suit without approaching the committee of the department for determination of the compensation. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following four issues :-