STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GUDDI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Sec. 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 5/5/2015 passed by the Additional District Judge Chhabra, in Suit No.7/2013, whereby and whereunder decreeing the suit claiming compensation under Sec. 1-A of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 allowed compensation Rs.8,16,280.00 to plaintiffs against appellant JVVNL on account of death of their husband and father due to electrocution.

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondents plaintiffs (hereafter 'the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit claiming compensation on account of accidental death of their husband, son and father Jagdish, aged 35 years, who died on 16/8/2011 because of electrocution, while he was driving pick-up RJ-28- GA-0958. It was averred that on 16/8/2011 at 8.00 AM while Jagdish was driving pick-up, along with Bablu @ Charan Singh and Banti @ Rajbhan, from Bhojpur to Kadaiyahat, just after village Kotdapar near the house of Badri Lal Aheer while pick-up was crossing the gravel road came into contact of electricity line of 11000 KV, which was loose, Jagdish became unconscious, Bablu @ Charan Singh died on spot and Banti @ Rajbhan saved his life by jump from the vehicle. Jagdish was taken to hospital where during treatment he died because of electrocution. As such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.23,30,000.00.

(3.) On issuing notices appellants-defendants JVVNL filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and stated that plaintiffs have intentionally did not implead the insurance company as party in the suit and that plaintiffs have made efforts for compensation from defendants as well as from the insurance company. It was pleaded that on gravel road because of sand and boulder the level of road risen due to which accident of electrocution occurred, for which the agency constructing the road was responsible and not defendants. Plaintiffs have not impleaded the agency which was constructing road. Once the pick-up had already crossed gravel road, on return it was fault of driver due to which it came into contact of electricity line, but wires were not loose, nor any such complaint was ever received. Therefore, defendants are not responsible for the death of deceased. It was stated that body of pick-up was high than the regular height, further somebody riding in pick-up used stick, due to which fatal accident occurred. It was further stated that in day light electric wires were visible, if driver might have driven vehicle carefully accident could be avoided. It was further stated that lineman was already deputed at the place, who never made any complaint about low line. Defendants did not commit any carelessness in their duty and accordingly prayed for dismissal of suit.