The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No. 497 of 2023 An appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure. Indurekha Swain and Others ...… Appellants --------------- -Versus- CEO, TPCODL, Bhubaneswar ..… & Others Respondents Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Appellants : M/s. S.K. Das, B.C. Pradhan D.C. Dhal & S. Mohanty, Advocates For Respondents : M/s. L.K. Maharana & R. Jena, Advocates _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. JUDGMENT 25.04.2025 The plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment. The suit of the plaintiffs for grant of compensation of Rs.6,45,000/- on account of death of Mrunalakanta Swain due to electrocution caused by the Page 1 of 13
Legal Reasoning
negligence of the defendants was dismissed and confirmed in appeal by the 1st Appellate Court. 2. For convenience, the parties are described as per their respective status in the trial court. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the deceased- Mrunalkanta Swain is the husband of plaintiff No.1, father of plaintiff No.2, brother of plaintiff Nos. 3(a) to 3(c) and son of plaintiff No.4. When the deceased had been to his paddy field to irrigate the same on 19.04.2000, he received electric shock and died on the spot. The nearby farmers rushed to the spot and disconnected the electricity supply. One Kedarnath Swain lodged FIR in Aul Police Station basing on which a P.S. case was registered. The Investigating Officer conducted inquest over the dead body, which was subsequently sent for postmortem examination. According to the plaintiffs, the current supply to L.I. Point No.1 through iron poles were rusted and the wire and condensers were weakened due to which the earth became charged, resulting in death of the deceased. It was further claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, out of his landed property Page 2 of 13 and grocery shop with which he was maintaining his family members. Because of his untimely death, the family members sustained loss for which they claimed compensation from defendant No.2, which being rejected, they filed the suit. 4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. Their specific plea was that there was no negligence on their part regarding maintenance of the electrical structure to Radhanagar L.I. Point. The deceased was unauthorizedly dealing with the L.I. point and came in contact with electricity near the motor installed and died due to his own negligence. Further, the spot of the death is not the land of the deceased or any of his family members. There was also no claim raised for compensation. 5. Basing on the rival pleadings, a trial Court framed the following issues for determination:- “i. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? ii. Has the plaintiffs have any cause of action to file the suit? Page 3 of 13 iii. Whether the deceased Mrunalakanta Swain died due to electrocution on 19.04.2000 at his paddy field of village Gavadia? iv. Whether the death of Mrunalakanta Swain is cause due to negligence of defendants? v. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation of Rs.6,45,000/- from the defendants? vi. To what other relief(s) the plaintiffs are entitled?” 6. Taking up Issue No.3 for consideration at the outset, the trial Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence held that the deceased died near Radhanagar L.I. Point No.1 due to electrocution and not in his paddy field. On Issue Nos. 4 and 5, the trial Court accepted the stand of the defendants that the deceased was operating the L.I. point unauthorisedly and died due to electrocution. As such, his death was due to his own negligence and not of the defendants. The suit was accordingly dismissed. 7. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, learned 1st Appellate Court placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish that the defendants committed Page 4 of 13 breach of their duty of care. Analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the 1st Appellate Court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a case that due to non-observance of standard care by the defendants, the mishap had occurred. The appeal was thus dismissed. 8. Being further aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the finding of the Courts below regarding the place of death of the deceased is contrary to the evidence on record.” 9.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. B.C. Pradhan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and Mr. A.K. Maharana, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents. 10. Mr. Pradhan would argue that it has been admitted by the defendants that the death of the deceased was due to electrocution. The defendants however could not prove their plea that such death was due to negligence of the deceased when he was dealing with L.I. point unauthorizedly. Mr. Pradhan refers to the admission of the witness examined as D.W.1 that after the accident the Page 5 of 13 iron poles were replaced substituting then with concrete poles, which proves the stand of the plaintiffs that the iron poles were rusted. From the inquest report and final form, it is seen that the deceased was lying near Sunamuha Jora pipe line near the L.I. point, which proves that he died outside and not inside the L.I. point as claimed by the defendants. According to Mr. Pradhan, both the Courts below have adopted a hyper-technical approach to reject the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs but accepted the evidence of the defendants even though the same was not conclusive. 11. Per contra, Mr. Maharana would argue that it is borne out from the evidence on record that the paddy field of the deceased was at a distance from the L.I. point. Since his dead body was found near the L.I. point and the door of the L.I. point room was open, it clearly implies that he was electrocuted while unauthorizedly dealing with the electrical structure. He further argues that since the plaintiffs have claimed compensation on the ground of negligence, heavy burden is cast upon them to prove negligence of the defendants, which they failed to do. Page 6 of 13 12. Before delving into the merits of the rival contentions advanced by the parties vis-(cid:224)-vis the substantial question of law framed, this Court deems it proper to take note of certain admitted facts. Death of Mrunalkanta Swain on 19.04.2000 at about 8 A.M is admitted. That such death was due to electrocution is also admitted and otherwise proved by the postmortem report available in the LCR. The dispute seems to be hovering around the place of death. As per the plaint, on the relevant date and time, the deceased “was going to his summer paddy field for water supply, suddenly he was shocked by electric current on earth for which he died on the spot”. Where exactly is the spot has not been explicitly stated in the plaint. The inquest report marked Ext.D can be of assistance in this regard. The Investigating Officer has mentioned that the deceased was lying besides the pipe of Sunamuha Jora Radhanagar L.I. point. Two persons, namely, Manoj Swain and Kedarnath Swain are said to be eyewitnesses to the occurrence, both of whom were examined as witnesses in the Court as P.W. 2 and P.W.3 respectively. P.W. 2 deposed that the Page 7 of 13 deceased died on his summer paddy field due to electric current in the said field as the life conductor was cut off and touched the ground and water near the lift irrigation point. Kedarnath Swain (P.W.3) has also stated the same thing. P.W.2 stated in cross examination that the cultivable land of the deceased is at a distance of 22 to 25 feet from the L.I. point. So, it can be reasonably inferred that the paddy field belonging to the deceased and the L.I. point are in close proximity of each other. It is not the case of defendants that the L.I. point was situated far away for which the presence of the dead body of the deceased near it could bolster their plea that the deceased had no business to be there. The trial Court rejected the above referred statement of P.W.2 in cross-examination on the ground that the same is not as per plaint averments. This Court is unable to concur with such reasoning for the fact that a statement elicited from the witness in cross examination as regards the exact distance cannot be ignored on the ground that the same is not mentioned in the plaint. Nevertheless, this Court is of the view that the finding of the trial court that the deceased died near Page 8 of 13 Radhanagar L.I. Point No.1 cannot be treated as perverse for the reasons indicated above. 13. What would be the implication of the above finding? Both the Courts below have concurrently held that death of the deceased was due to his own negligence or rather there was no negligence on the part of the defendants resulting in his death. For the reasons to be amplified hereinafter, this Court is of the considered view that the above finding of both the courts below are erroneous. As already stated, this is a case where death of the deceased admittedly occurred due to electrocution as borne out from the evidence on record, near the Radhanagar L.I. Point No.1. There were two eyewitnesses to the occurrence, namely, P.Ws. 2 and 3, both of whom stated to have seen the deceased coming in contact with electricity while going to his paddy field. The defendants claim that the deceased was unauthorizedly dealing with the L.I. point motor, due to which, he died. This Court finds it difficult to accept the above plea for the reason that if the deceased was handling the electrical structure of the L.I. point and got electrocuted, the question is, how Page 9 of 13 could his dead body be found outside room of which the door was open. D.W. 1 admits that there was one iron electric pole having electricity connection to the L.I. point. The department replaced the iron poles substituting the same with concrete pole. The iron poles were replaced as they were found damaged. The replacement was made after death of the deceased. The above admission leads considerable support to the specific stand of the plaintiffs that the iron poles were rusted and the condensers were weak due to which, the earth was charged. 14. Even ignoring the above evidence on record for a moment, in view of the admitted facts of the case, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be applied. The doctrine means, the incident tells its own story. It is the settled position of law that res ipsa loquitur is a principle which aids the Court in deciding as to the stage at which the onus shifts from one side to other. Where a particular state of affairs is shown to be under the management of a department and the accident takes place which, in the ordinary course of things, would not happen, it offers reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation by the Page 10 of 13 defendants that the accident arose from want of care. In the instant case, the defendants have not conclusively proved that the deceased was mishandling the L.I. point unauthorizedly in the absence of the L.I. point driver, which caused the accident. Rather evidence is overwhelming to the effect that the deceased was lying dead near the L.I. point and the iron poles connecting electricity to the L.I. point were rusted. Another aspect must be considered that the deceased was not a novice but a farmer of the area, who must be presumed to be aware of the working of the L.I. point. It is not as if he was present there for the first time, rather as borne out from the evidence, he was going to irrigate his paddy field. The L.I. point having been installed earlier and being obviously within the knowledge of all concerned including the deceased, it is reasonable to hold that the accident would not have occurred in the ordinary course of things but for charging of the earth and the water thereon by electricity, which in turn can be treated as an act of negligence by the department. Both the Courts below appear to have adopted a hyper-technical approach in insisting upon Page 11 of 13 strict proof from the side of the plaintiffs completely ignoring the principle of res ipsa loquitur, which, according to the considered view of this Court, applies in full force. By proving the factum of death and the cause of death of the deceased, i.e., electrocution the plaintiffs must be held to have discharged their initial burden. The place of death and the lack of acceptable evidence from the defendants in support of their plea of negligence by the deceased attracts the principle of res ipsa loquitur. This Court therefore, finds that there being adequate reasons to accept the case of the plaintiffs, both the courts below must be held to have committed manifest error in rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs. This Court further holds that death of the deceased having been caused due to electrocution was the result of negligence of the defendants in properly maintaining the L.I. point and structure. As such, they are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for their loss. 15. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in full. The defendants be Page 12 of 13 directed to pay Rs.4,20,000/- to the plaintiffs towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge B.C. Tudu, Sr. Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 29-Apr-2025 11:49:47 Page 13 of 13