LAWS(RAJ)-2013-1-70

CHARANJEET SINGH Vs. SHANTI DEVI

Decided On January 15, 2013
CHARANJEET SINGH Appellant
V/S
SHANTI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the aforesaid appeals have been filed against one judgment and award passed by MACT, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 19.5.2008 at about 8.00 PM deceased Surata Singh @ Surata Ram was going in the marriage party in bus No. RJ 01-PA-0666. The bus was over crowded and as such the deceased sat on the roof of the bus. When the bus reached Narsingh Basni (Chiman Singh Ki Dhani) in Police Station, Thanwla, District Nagaur, the driver of the vehicle without informing the members of the marriage party, took a turn below the electric wires hanging over the road, as a result of which the electric wire touched the body of deceased. On this count, the deceased Surata Singh along-with Dharu Singh suffered burns due to electric shock and felt unconscious and died at the spot.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal while deciding issue no.1 has failed to see that the alleged accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, instead the same was caused due to sheer negligence on the part of AVVNL as the electric wires were hanging only at the height of 11 to 12 feet against the prescribed height of 17 to 18 feet as per the rules of Electricity Department, but this aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award and hence, the impugned award and judgment is liable to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the fact that the Electricity Department i.e. AVVNL is only responsible for the alleged accident as the Department has taken action against the lineman, who is the Incharge of the electric lines at the relevant time, which goes to show that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of AVVNL, but the learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter, while passing the impugned award.