VIKRAM SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN JVVNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2008 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Karauli (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court ") in Civil Suit No.18/2006 (35/2005) whereby the suit of the appellant-plaintiff filed under the Fatal Accident Act, 1855 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act ") has been dismissed.

(2.) AS per the case of the appellant-plaintiff before the trial court, he was taking his buffaloes for grazing to Dalilpur at about 08:30 a.m. on 11.08.2004 and he got burn injuries in his right hand, due to falling of live high tension electric wires of the electric pole belonging to the respondents-defendants. According to the appellant-plaintiff, his hand was required to be amputated during the course of treatment. He therefore filed the suit through the natural guardian, his father seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.24,00,000/-. The said suit was resisted by the respondents-defendants by filing the written statement denying the said allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that the suit was not maintainable under the said Act. The trial court after framing the issues and considering the evidence on record, dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability as well as on the merits, vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2008. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) AT the outset it is required to be stated that the suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff under the provisions contained in the said Act. As transpiring from the long title of the said Act, the Act was enacted to provide compensation to families for loss occasioned by death of the person caused by actionable wrong. Section (1A) of the said Act also deals with the suit of compensation to the family of a person for loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong. Hence, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the appellant-plaintiff having suffered only the injury out of the alleged incident, the suit for compensation under the said Act was not maintainable. The decision of this Court in case of R.S.E.B. Versus Kumari Guddi (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, would not apply as there is no specific finding given by the Court that the suit seeking compensation for the injuries at the instance of the claimant under the said Act, would be maintainable under the said Act. Under the provisions of the said Act, the family of the person who dies as a result of an actionable wrong would be entitled to file suit for the compensation. The person who suffers the injuries only as a result of the alleged accident can not make claim under the provisions of the said Act. In this regard the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Raj Kumar Vs. District Judge (supra). In that view of the matter it is required to be held that the suit of the appellant-plaintiff under the said Act was not maintainable.