HARNEET v. Leelavati Wd/o Late Rajesh Kumar

For Appellants : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board

08.10 .2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Appellants/Defendants No. 1 and 2 have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 10/09/2024 passed by the 3rd District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No. B-6/2019 whereby the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,21,290/- along with an interest of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till 3 the date of payment has been granted in their favour for the death of Rajesh Kumar on account of electrocution. (For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.)

2. The aforesaid challenge to the impugned judgment and decree has been made on the following factual backdrop :- (i) On 28/02/2016, deceased Rajesh Kumar came in contact with the loose live wire and died on the spot on account of electrocution. (ii) Plaintiffs, who are wife and minor son of deceased Rajesh Kumar, respectively, filed a suit seeking compensation of Rs. 41,00,000/- stating inter alia at the time of death, deceased was aged about 22 years and was an able-bodied person and he used to do agricultural work and also worked as a Driver/Labourer and earned Rs. 350/- to 400/- per day to fulfill the needs of his family/plaintiffs and respondents are 4 responsible for the death of the deceased, therefore, they are liable for payment of compensation. (iii) Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement jointly and opposed the averments made by the plaintiffs and stated that there was no negligence committed on the part of the defendants and the deceased himself was careless and negligent due to which he came into contact of the live wire and died due to electrocution, therefore, they are not liable for payment of compensation, if any. (iv) Learned trial Court, after relying upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1 , decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by impugned judgment and decree dated 10/09/2024 and granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,21,290/- in favour of the plaintiffs, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by which, the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 have preferred the instant first appeal on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore, the trial Court has erred in 1 (1987) 1 SCC 395 5 fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon defendants No. 1 and 2 and moreover, the amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court to the plaintiffs is not just and proper and is on the higher side, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned trial Court framed 7 issues and answered them as stated below :- Ø- 1 okn iz’u fu"d"kZ D;k fnukad 28&02&2016 dks xzke dqjFkhMkaM okMªQuxj izekf.krA ftyk cyjkeiqj jkekuqtxat] N0x0 esa izfroknh Ø0 1 o 2 ds }kjk fcNk;s x;s fctyh rkj ds laidZ esa vkus ds dkj.k djsaV yxus ls jkts’k dqekj dksjok dh e`R;q gks x;h Fkh\ 2 D;k izfroknh Ø- 1 ls 3 dh mis{kk o ykijokgh ds izfroknh Ø- 1 o 2 dkj.k jkts’k dqekj dksjok dh e`R;q gq;h Fkh\ dk nkf;Ro izekf.kr 3 D;k oknhx.k jkts’k dqekj dksjok dh gq;s ml e`R;q ds oknhx.k {kfr/ku laca/k esa jkf’k 41]00]000@& :i;s dh {kfriwfrZ] dh jkf’k izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ ;fn gk¡ rks 15]21]290@& :i fdl izfroknh ls fdruh&fdruh jkf’k izkIr djus ds ;s ,oa 6 izfr’kr vf/kdkjh gSa\ 4 lgk;rk ,oa O;;\ C;kt izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA fu.kZ; dh dafMdk&32 ds 6 vuqlkjA 5 6 7 D;k oknhx.k }kjk okn ds ewY;kadu vuqlkj U;k; 'kqYd vko’;d ughaA vnk fd;k x;k gS\ D;k oknhx.kksa }kjk izLrqr okn dks fopkj.k dh Þgk¡Þ {ks=kf/kdkfjrk bl U;k;ky; dks gS\ D;k oknhx.kksa }kjk izLrqr okn le;kof/k esa gS\ Þgk¡Þ

4. In sum and substance, the trial Court has held that on 28/02/2016, the deceased Rajesh Kumar came in contact of a live wire and died due to electrocution on account of rash and negligent act of the defendants and awarded Rs. 15,21,290/- as compensation in favour of the plaintiffs.

5. Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that deceased Rajesh Kumar died on account of electrocution because of gross negligence and carelessness of defendants No. 1 and 2 rather there was negligence on the part of the deceased, therefore, the trial Court has erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2. He would further submit that the 7 plaintiffs had not filed any document in support of proof of income of the deceased, therefore, the trial Court has erred in assessing his notional income and has granted a compensation which is not just and proper and is on the higher side, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

7. It is the case of the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 that deceased Rajesh Kumar died on account of his own negligence, however, the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 were under obligation to make provision for safety and electrical supply as per Section 53 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter, “the Act of 2003”), which provides as under :- “53. Provision relating to safety and electricity supply. - The Authority may, in consultation with the State Government, specify suitable measures for - (a) protecting the public (including the persons engaged in the generation, transmission or distribution or trading) from dangers arising from the generation, 8 transmission or distribution or trading of electricity, or use of electricity supplied or installation, maintenance or use of any electric line or electrical plant; (b) eliminating or reducing the risks of personal injury to any person, or damage to property of any person or interference with use of such property; (c) prohibiting the supply or transmission of electricity except by means of a system which conforms to the specifications as may be specified; (d) giving notice in the specified form to the Appropriate Commission and the Electrical Inspector, of accidents and failures of supplies or transmission of electricity; (e) keeping by a generating company or licensee the maps, plans and sections relating to supply or transmission of electricity; (f) inspection of maps, plans and sections by any person authorised by it or by Electrical Inspector or by any person on payment of specified fee; (g) specifying action to be taken in relation to any electric line or electrical plant, or any electrical appliance under the control of a consumer for the purpose of eliminating or reducing the risk of personal injury or damage to property or interference with its use.”

8. Furthermore, Section 161 of the Act of 2003 which provides for notice of accidents and inquiries, states as under :- “161. Notice of accidents and inquiries. - (1) If any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use 9 of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may be general or special order, direct. (2) The Appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector, or any other person appointed by it in this behalf, to inquire and report - (a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, or (b) as to the manner in, and extent to, which the provisions of this Act or rules and regulations made thereunder or of any licence, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with. (3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub- section (2) shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and every person required by an Electrical Inspector be legally bound to do so within the meaning of Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code.”

9. Thus, the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 10 2003 make it evidently clear that the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 were under statutory obligation to take measures to ensure public safety and the accident leading to death of deceased Rajesh Kumar is a failure on their part to comply with their statutory duty.

10. The Supreme Court, in the matter of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari 2 , a case relating to death by electrocution, has categorically held that the electricity company will be liable for damages even without proof of negligence and observed as under :- “14. The Privy Council has observed in Quebec Rly., Light, Head and Power Co. Ltd v. Vandry3 that the company supplying electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent. Even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account of a violent wind and high-tension current found its way through the low-tension cable into the premises of the respondents was held to be not a justifiable defence. Thus, merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road.” 2 (2002) 2 SCC 162 3 1920 AC 662 11

11. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court went a step ahead in the matter of M.C. Mehta (supra) and held as under :- “Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.”

12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it was the statutory obligation of the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 to ensure public safety in view of the provision contained under Section 53 of the Act of 2003 in which they have failed and the accident in which deceased Rajesh Kumar died on account of electrocution shows gross negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2. Moreover, Mishri Lal (P.w.-2) has admitted in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination that on the date of the accident the live wire was loose and hanging lower than its usual height. Further, Rekhram Sahu (DW-2), Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Department, has also admitted 12 in his cross-examination that he had gone to the accident spot for enquiry but since the house in question was locked, he could not enquire about the accident. He has further admitted that if an accident happens on account of the equipments of the Electricity Department, then the responsibility lies upon the Department. As such, in light of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shail Kumari (supra) and M.C. Mehta (supra), the trial Court, after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly held that deceased Rajesh Kumar died on account of electrocution due to gross negligence of the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 and they are liable for payment of compensation to the plaintiffs. `

13. So far as the quantum of compensation granted to the plaintiffs is concerned, learned trial Court, after consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has assessed the income of deceased Rajesh Kumar as Rs. 56,004/- yearly after making a deduction of 1/3rd towards his personal income and 13 thereafter, granted 40% as future prospect making the loss of dependency as Rs. 78,405/- and then applied the multiplier of 18 and further granted Rs. 15,000/- as loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 80,000/- as loss of consortium, has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 15,21,290/- in favour of the plaintiffs with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 12/08/2017 till the date of its realization, which in our considered opinion, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. We hereby affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and do not find any merit in the instant appeal.

14. Accordingly, this first appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

15. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- /- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Harneet