Civil Suit No. 49 of 2012 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. No.78 of 2017 In the matter of appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2016 & 24.11.2016 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur in R.F.A. No.25 of 2016 confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 and 07.04.2016 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sambalpur in Civil Suit No.49 of 2012. ---- M/s.Western Electricity Supply Company of Odisha Limited, (Presently WESCO Utility), represented by its Authorized Officder -versus- …. Appellant Parbati Ghibela & Others …. Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mrs.Suman Pattanayak (Advocate)
Legal Reasoning
For Respondents - Mr.A.P. Bose (Advocate for R.1) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 23.09.2022 : Date of Judgment:26.09.2022 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2016 & 24.11.2016 respectively RSA No.78 of 2017 Page 1 of 7 {{ 2 }} passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur in R.F.A. No.25 of 2016. By the said common judgment, the Appeals filed by the present Appellants as well as Respondents under section 96 of the Code, have been dismissed and thereby the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 and 07.04.2016 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sambalpur in Civil Suit No.49 of 2012, have been confirmed. The suit filed by the Respondents, as the Plaintiffs arraigning the present Appellant as the Defendant has been decreed directing the Appellant (Defendant) to pay a compensation of Rs.8,17,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Thousand Five Hundred) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the of the suit till payment. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court. 3. The Plaintiffs’ case is that one Prafulla Ghibila, who happens to the husband of Plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 died due to electrocution. It is stated that on when he was going around to village pond to take bath, on his way, he come in contact with the live electric wire having at a height of 2 to 3 feet above the road being detached from the electric poles and died. It is stated that those live electric wires where neither insulated nor the automatic disconnection device system was in place. In view of the death of the deceased, the matter had been reported to the Police Station and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The deceased is said to have met his untimely death due to negligence on the part of the Defendant in not properly maintaining the live electric wires fixed to the poles for supply of RSA No.78 of 2017 Page 2 of 7 {{ 3 }} electric energy to the consumers. It is further stated that the deceased then was aged about 38 years and working as stone cutter and as such was earning Rs.400/- per day and contributing the same to the Plaintiffs. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.40,000/- had been spent by the Plaintiff No.1 to meet the funeral expenses. For the above incident, attributing negligence to the employees of the Defendant, the Plaintiffs filed the suit claiming compensation of Rs.30,40,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Forty Thousand). 4. The Defendants, in the written station, while refuting the age and income of the deceased, further stated that on the day at the relevant time, there was heavy lightening in the village and that suddenly caused damaged to the electric wires and for that reason, the deceased having come in contact with the live electric wires, has dead. It is stated that the lightening and the disconnection of the live electric wires from the poles were so sudden and the time gap was so short that hardly there was any scope for the employees of the Defendant to do the needful in restoration. 5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court, having framed six issues, has answered the crucial, i.e. issue no.4 holding the employees of the Defendant as negligent and that is said to have led to the death of the deceased. Having said as above, the other issues with regard to the age, income being decided; computation of the compensation being taken up, the Trial court has directed the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.8,17,500/- to the Plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till payment. The Plaintiffs having carried the First Appeal seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation and the Defendant having RSA No.78 of 2017 Page 3 of 7 {{ 4 }} carried the First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree saddling the liability of compensation upon them; both the Appeals have been dismissed. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court have come into play. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that findings of the Courts below on issue no.4 is not in consonance with the evidence on record. It was submitted that the circumstances emanating from the evidence, being taken together into consideration, the conclusion has to be that there was no negligence from the side of the Defendant. She submitted that there been heavy lightening at the relevant time and that having led to the situation that the employees of the Defendant, by the time of unfortunate incident took place, hardly the opportunity to do the needful in taking care of the situation by undertaking restoration work, the Courts below have gone wrong in answering the said issue against the Defendant. He further submitted that the compensation, as has been assessed, is on a higher side as also the rate of interest. It was that further stated that keeping in view that there was some exgraitia payment to the Plaintiffs, it should be directed that the interest would run @6% per annum with effect from the decision rendered by the Trial Court and not from the date of filing of the suit. She, therefore, urged for admission of this Appeal to answer the above as the substantial questions of law. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents, in assisting the Court in the matter of admission, submitted all in favour of the findings returned by the Courts below. According to him, when the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have concurrently found that all such precautionary measures had not been taken by the Defendant in charge RSA No.78 of 2017 Page 4 of 7 {{ 5 }} of supply of electricity in the area and maintenance of the overhead electric wires transformer etc, the same being free from any perversity is not liable to be interfered with. He submitted that even though for a moment, it is accepted that there was lightening but then evidence being not thereon as to the timing of such lightening and that the overhead wires got disconnection form the poles for that which was just before the unfortunate incident, the presumption stands drawn that either there was no such proper maintenance of the live electric wires or there was no prompt action at least to the extent of disruption of passing of the electricity in the area. He further submitted that the findings on issue no.4 being concurrent when there surfaces no such perversity, this Court, in seisin of the second Appeal, should not interfere with the same merely for the reason that another view also appears. Coming to the quantum of compensation assessed by the Courts below, he submitted that he evidence as to the age and income of the deceased having been thoroughly scanned, the quantum of compensation has been rightly assessed. 8. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. 9. Admittedly, the death of the husband of Plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiffs 2 to 4, has taken place due to electrocution. It is not in dispute that the deceased died by coming in contact with live electric wires which was lying just above the road which are likely to come in contact of a passers by the road. The Defendants, in order to dislodge the presumption as to their negligence, which arises in the facts and circumstances, as stated above, has taken the plea that in this incident, the overhead live wires having been detached from the poles due to RSA No.78 of 2017 Page 5 of 7 {{ 6 }} lightening, has, however, not been able to lead satisfactory evidence in establishing such a plea to show that the employees had no scope. Moreso, if there was the lightening, the employees of the Defendant in charge should have taken some preventive measures even going to the extreme by causing disruption of electricity through the overhead wires in the area. There is no evidence on that score too. In that view of the matter, this Court, finding no such perversity in the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below, is of the view that the issue has been rightly answered. 10. Coming to the question of determination of compensation payable to the Plaintiffs for the said death of Prafulla, the discussion, as made by the Courts below being gone through; it is seen that the evidence on record to the age and income of the deceased having been properly evaluated, the age of the deceased has been rightly held to be 38 years at the time of death and his income at Rs.3000/- per month has also been rightly assessed keeping in view the evidence that he was a skilled worker. It is also seen that proper multiplier ‘15’ has been selected for purpose which fits into the age. So, this Court finds the assessment of the compensation, as made by the Courts below, to be just and proper. For all the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that there arises any substantial question of law for being answered in this Appeal is not accepted. With that view in the matter, however, taking into account the fact that the Plaintiffs had received some financial assistance from the State for the said incident, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below stands modified to the extent that the Plaintiffs are entitled to get the compensation of Rs.8,17,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventeen RSA No.78 of 2017 Page 6 of 7 {{ 7 }} Thousand Five Hundred) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 01.04.2016, i.e., from the next day of the decision in the suit. 11.
Decision
In the result, the Appeal stands disposed of with modification of the judgments and decrees only to the extent, as indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. (D. Dash), Judge. Basu RSA No.78 of 2017 Page 7 of 7