Ltd. Sikar v. Sikar

1. Smt Geeta Devi widow of Shri Murlidhar R/o Kudan Distt. Sikar.

2. Kumari Archana D/o late shri Murlidhar, aged about 12 years.

3. Kumari Suman D/o late Shri Murlidhar, aged about 8 years.

4. Anil Kumar S/o late Shri Murlidhar, aged about 6 months

5. Smt. Soni Devi Wife of Shri Paratram,

6. Paratram Son of Shri Mukandram, resident of Kudan, district Sikar. ----Respondents/plaintiffs For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sonal Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Adil HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 10/02/2025 This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, District Sikar (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit(Fatal) Case No. [2025:RJ-JP:5157] (2 of 5) [CFA-43/2000] 25/1998 whereby the trial court while partly allowing the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiff’) awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-/- along with interest @ 5 % per annum from the date of filing the suit as compensation in favour of the plaintiffs. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants claiming compensation of Rs.1,14,14,200/-. In the suit, the plaintiffs mentioned that on account of the negligence of the defendants, Shri Murlidhar died, on 30.06.1996, when he was going from village Palri to village Kudan on his motor-cycle bearing No.RJ-23-M-0292 which was being driven by him. Shri Ram Niwas S/o Girdhari Lal was also seated on the said motor cycle as pillion rider. When they reached near electricity Pole No.1 and 2, all of the sudden, the wires in between the poles were sparked and fell down on the ground. Deceased could not stop his motor-cycle. In the broken electricity wires, current was flowing. On account of electrocution, Murlidhar died. The said accident occurred due to negligence of the defendants. In the plaint, it was also mentioned that at the time of accident, deceased was 35 years of age and he was a class ‘C’ contractor. In the year 1995-1996, income of the deceased was Rs.82,461/- for which he had paid income tax of Rs.16,492/-. He also got served a contract to build a Referral Hospital in village Kudan for Rs.5,61,000/-. He used to earn Rs.50,000/- per annum by doing agricultural work. The defendants filed the written statement mentioning therein that the poles and electricity lines were very well maintained by them. There was no negligence on the part of the [2025:RJ-JP:5157] (3 of 5) [CFA-43/2000] defendants. Shri Murlidhar died due to his negligence. He was riding the motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner. So, for his negligence, the defendants can not be held liable for paying the compensation to the plaintiffs. So, the suit filed by the defendants be dismissed. On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k izfroknhx.k }kjk fo|qr ykbZu ds lEcU/k esa cjrh x;h ?kksj mis{kk] ykijokgh rFkk vlko/kkuh cjrus ds dkj.k fnukad 30 twu 1996 dks jk=h djhcu 11 cts eksVjlkbZfdy la[;k vkj ts 23 ,e 0292 ij lokj eqjyh/kj iq= ijrkjke vk;Z fuoklh dwnu ij xzke dwnu ds mRrj esa rFkk ?kksjkM+k tksgM+k ls nf{k.k esa dwnu iuykok vkt lM+d ij fo|qr rkj VwVdj fxj tkus ls eqjyh/kj dh fo|qr vk?kkr bysDVªhd “kkWd ,.M ,.M bysDVªhd dj.V ls fnukad 01-08-1996 dks e`R;q gks x;h\ 2- vk;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 yxk0 6 ls 1]14]14]200 :i;s dh jkf”k crkSj gtkZ e; C;kt nks :i;k ekfyd izfr lSdMk dh nj ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k fo|qr rkj izkd`frd ?kVuk vFkok bZz”ojh; izdksi ds dkj.k VwVk gS\ 4- vk;k fo|qr e.My ds fdlh deZpkjh ;k vf/kdkjh dh dksbZ mis{kk ;k ykijokgh ugha jgh gS\ 5- vuqrks’k\ To prove their case, the plaintiffs got examined (AW-1) Geeta Devi, (AW-2) Soni Devi, (AW-3)Lali, (AW-4) Ganga Devi, (AW-5) Partaram, (AW-6) Girdhari Lal, (AW-7) Harpal Singh, (AW-8) Amarchand and Mahendra Singh. To prove their case, the defendants got examined (DW-1) Anil Kumar and (DW-2) Bajrang Lal. [2025:RJ-JP:5157] (4 of 5) [CFA-43/2000] After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999, awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 5 % per annum from the date of filing the suit as compensation in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside because the trial court has not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that neither any report had ever been lodged against the defendants for their negligence for not maintaining the electricity wires/lines etc properly nor any notice was ever served upon the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the said motor cycle was being driven by the deceased in a rash and negligent manner. He could avoid from touching the broken wires, if laid on the ground. So, the judgment and decree dated

25.11.1999 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. It is an admitted position that Murlidhar died due to electrocution and he had sustained current on account of broken wires. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that Murlidhar died on account of electrocution and he had sustained current from the broken wires [2025:RJ-JP:5157] (5 of 5) [CFA-43/2000] which were lying on the ground. Wires were broken on account of poor improper maintenance by the defendants. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in partly allowing the suit filed by the plaintiffs and awarding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 5 % per annum from the date of filing the suit as compensation in favour of the plaintiffs. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. Gourav/10 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J