KUMAR v. Smt. Neera Bai Wd/o Late Nathuram Pal

The appellant/defendant No. 1 and 2 have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth, 2 referred to as ‘CPC’) against the judgment and decree dated 29-4- 2024 passed by the District Judge, Bhatapara (CG) /trial Court in Civil Suit No. 04-B/2023, whereby the trial Court has allowed the civil suit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs and granted Rs. 6,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its payment, as compensation amount to them. (hereinafter, parties shall be referred as per their description before the trial Court).

2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the appellants and respondent No. 3/defendants stating inter alia that, the Plaintiff No. 1, Smt. Neera Bai, is wife of the deceased Nathuram Pal, and Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons. Deceased Nathuram Pal died on 22-06-2019 due to electrocution caused by a fallen electric wire from a temporary electricity connection at the borewell located in Village Chamari Khar. The incident was reported to the Bhatapara Rural Police Station. Upon receiving information of the unnatural death of Nathuram Pal, proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated. The police visited the site, conducted the inquest, prepared the spot map and panchanama (site inspection report), and sent the dead body of the deceased for post- mortem to ascertain the actual cause of death. The post-mortem confirmed that the cause of death was electric shock. The incident was investigated by Bhatapara Rural Police, and as per their report, the death of Nathuram Pal occurred due to electrocution. It is further pleaded that, the deceased was engaged in agricultural work before 3 the incident and was supporting his family. His sudden death has caused irreparable loss to the plaintiffs. It has created economic and mental hardship for them. The plaintiff No. 1/wife of the deceased has been deprived of marital companionship, and the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 have been deprived of the love and support of his father. As a result, the plaintiffs have suffered physical, mental, and financial loss, for which, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are responsible. The plaintiffs have prayed for Rs. 50,000/- towards the expenses incurred on the last rites and death rituals of the deceased, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the loss caused by the deprivation of marital companionship, Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the loss of future income due to the accidental death of deceased, 1,00,000/- for the loss of father's affection and support, ₹ and Rs. 1,50,000/- for mental agony. Thus, a total compensation amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- has been sought by the plaintiffs from the defendants No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

3. In the matter, Defendants No. 1 and 2 have submitted written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiffs. They stated that the Electricity Company conducted an investigation of the incident, which revealed that on the morning of the incident, around 7:30 AM, the deceased Nathuram had gone to inspect his field as per his daily routine. The wire of the temporary electricity connection taken from the Electricity Department for his pump was found broken. Nathuram Pal was found dead holding the broken wire near the boundary of Gangadhar’s field. It was further stated that there had been a thunderstorm with heavy rain in the previous night, which 4 likely caused the service wire to break. Nathuram attempted to remove the broken service wire, during which the exposed part of the wire came into contact with his hand, leading to his electrocution and death. This, according to the defendants, was a natural incident, for which the defendants No. 1 and 2 cannot be held responsible. Further, death of deceased has occurred due to his own negligence. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs may be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, learned trial Court framed 4 issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and after considering the evidence and contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it partly allowed the civil suit granting decree in favour of plaintiffs and directed the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 6,55,000/- to the plaintiffs along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by such judgment and decree, appellants/plaintiffs have filed instant first appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, temporary electric connection was taken by the deceased himself for his tubewell and the tubewell was temporarily connected from the electric pole through service wire installed with support of bamboo poles. Because of thunderstorm and heavy rainfall, the bamboo poles were broken, as such, service wire was fallen down on the agricultural field, which was held by the deceased himself, therefore, he got electrocuted for his own negligence. He further submits that, it is the liability of the consumer himself to maintain service wire of temporary connection, which the deceased himself held. Learned counsel further submits that 5 learned trial Court has assessed the amount of compensation relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex in MACT case(s), which is not applicable in Tort cases/civil cases, rather in civil suit, strict rule of evidence is applied, as such, plaintiffs ought to have proved their case by adducing cogent evidence, but plaintiffs have not done so by adducing such evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs would support the impugned judgment.

7. Learned State counsel submits that, State is a formal party in this case.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. Undisputedly, deceased died because of electrocution, which also gets support from the post mortem report Annexure P-3 of the deceased and plaintiffs’ witnesses. It is also proved from the evidence adduced by the parties that, deceased Nathuram Pal suffered electric shock because he held service wire, which was drawn from electric pole to his tubewell, as it was fallen in thunderstorm and heavy rainfall. It is not a case of the defendants that the said temporary electric connection was taken illegally or by hooking it from electric pole, rather, it was provided by the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2, of which, service number was 1007311462/53470295-87-000076, meaning thereby, appellants/ defendants No. 1 and 2 were getting 6 electricity charge against said temporary electricity connection. It is the liability of defendants No. 1 and 2 to maintain service wire from electric pole to meter. It was also the duty of electricity department that, if support pole was required, then proper supporting pole ought to have been installed, so that, it could face thunderstorm, rainfall etc, but defendants’ department failed to fulfill its liability. Since, deceased was a village person and agriculturist, hence for holding the electric service wire, liability cannot be shifted upon him for the negligence committed by the defendants No. 1 and 2.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 : (AIR 2002 SC 551) elaborated the doctrine of “strict liability” which has its origin in English common law, in cases of death of a citizen due to snap electrocution where a very limited scope of defence was left to an incumbent, who is obliged to adhere to the requisite safety measures. The said principle of strict liability has been applied irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the Managers / Operators of undertaking with activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life. Paras 8, 9 & 10 are relevant and quoted hereinbelow:- “8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such 7 undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e., the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.

9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English common law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL330 : (1861/73) All ER Rep 1, Blackbur, J, the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision : (All ERp. 7E-F) “The true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damages which is the natural consequences of its escape”.

10. There are seven exceptions formulated by means of case-law to the doctrine of strict liability. It is unnecessary to enumerate those exceptions barring one which is this : “Act of stranger i.e., if the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, the rule 8 does not apply”. (Vide P.535, Winfield on Tort, 15th Edn.)” At para 12 of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari