AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Sec. 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 27/11/2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu, in Suit No.105/2008, whereby and whereunder decreeing the suit claiming compensation under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 allowed compensation Rs.3,00,000.00 to plaintiffs against the appellant AVVNL on account of death of their son due to electrocution.

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent plaintiffs (hereafter 'the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit claiming compensation on account of accidental death of their young son Maniram, aged 17 years, who died at the spot on 11/11/2007 at 7.00 PM because of electrocution, while he was working in agricultural field. It was averred that 11000 KV line was going over their agricultural land and lines were not properly insulated, wires were hanging at low level and loose, and due to which the deceased Maniram while carrying pipe for irrigation in the fields suffered electric current and died. FIR in this regard was also registered and investigation was conducted. It was averred that the deceased Maniram was a student of 12th class and sport person of national level and had participated in national wrestling competition at Delhi, representing the state of Rajasthan and won the same, and in Secondary class he was meritorious. After the fatal accident of deceased the wire was broken and sparking continued all the night, but the concerned department did not pay any heed. As such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.48,00,000.00.

(3.) On issuing notices appellants-defendants (hereafter 'the defendants') filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and stated that wires were in good condition and at a height of 20 ft. However, they admitted the fact of accident and did not disputed the factum of death of deceased because of electrocution. It was stated that the defendants did not receive any complaint regarding faulty electric lines and it was the duty of plaintiffs to take precaution while working nearby electric lines and no liability could be shifted upon defendants.