1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 4-4-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1 Sikar, in Suit No.118/2005(61/2005), whereby and whereunder decreeing the suit claiming compensation under the Indian Fatal Accident Act, 1855 allowed compensation Rs.3,96,000/- to plaintiffs against appellant AVVNL on account of death of their husband, father and son due to electrocution.
2. The facts of the case are that respondents plaintiffs (hereafter `the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit claiming compensation on account of accidental death of husband, father and son Shobh Singh, aged 30 years, who died on 6-5-2005 because of electrocution, while he climbed on kikar tree for cutting branches for feeding his cattle, at the same time current from electricity line of 11000 KV, which was loose and passed through the tree, and Shobh Singh died on the spot. It was stated that About 5-7 days ago a pole of electricity line, which was passing through the field of deceased, was broken and the personnel of electricity department used the same pole for raising the electricity line, due to which the same was loose and while the deceased Shobh Singh tried to cut branches of tree he came into contact of the electricity current, as wires were not seen due to leaves and branches of the tree. As such alleging negligence on the part of defendants suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.27,40,000/-.
3. On issuing notices appellants-defendants AVVNL filed written statement and denied the allegation of negligence and also denied that any pole was broken or electricity line was changed. It was stated that at the time of laying electricity line there was no branch of tree, which were grown more and reached upto electricity line which was not seen by the deceased, therefore it was carelessness of the deceased who climbed on such tree for cutting branches. Therefore, defendants are not responsible for the death of deceased. It was stated that defendants did not commit any carelessness in their duty and accordingly prayed for dismissal of suit.
4. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed three issues. First, whether the deceased Shobh Singh died on 6-5-2005 due to carelessness of defendants and their employees, who used the broken pole to lay the electricity line due to which height of the line reduced and deceased came into contact of electric current while cutting branches of tree
Second, Whether claimants are entitled to receive compensation of
Rs.27,40,000/-
Third, Relief
5. Plaintiffs examined two witnesses Aw.1 Lad Kanwar and Aw.2 Mangu Singh and exhibited 7 documents. Defendants examined two witnesses NAW.1 Manaram Arya and NAW.2 B.S. Ratnu and exhibited 10 documents.
6. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties. Aw.1 Lad Kanwar and Aw.2 Mangu Singh both stated that deceased Shobh Singh on the day of accident climbed the tree for purpose of cutting branches for feeding his cattle sheep and goats. It was stated that electricity line was passing through their field which was loose because about ten days ago a pole was broken and the department instead of changing the pole, used the same broken pole for the electricity line. While cutting branches of tree Shobh Singh came into contact of current and died on spot on 6-5- 2005. It was stated that deceased was earning Rs.8000/- per month.
6.1 Dw.1 Manaram stated that Shobh Singh prior to climbing on tree did not watched about electric wires and while he cut branches which were touching wires came into contact of current and died on spot. It was carelessness of deceased himself. Dw.2 B.S. Ratnu stated that he enquired about the incident. The deceased died because of electric current from 11000 KV line, while he was cutting branches of tree. There was no broken pole, the deceased was insane person as such he was careless.
6.2 Considering evidence of both parties the trial court came to the conclusion that if branches cut from tree fall on electric wire then it is admitted position that electric line was not at a proper height and it was the carelessness of the department. Death of Shobh Singh because of electric current was proved from post mortem report (Ex.7) and the report (Ex.A-1) of enquiry conducted by the department. The trial court considering enquiry report of department concluded that the department proved the fact that while deceased cut branches they fell on tree and current passed in tree due which deceased died. The trial court concluded that if branches after cutting fell on tree, it was carelessness of the department that they did not cut the same. As such the issue No.1 was decided in favour of plaintiffs.
6.3 Issue No.2, regarding compensation, the trial court in absence of any proof of source of income of deceased, assessed the income of deceased as Rs.3000/- per month, and deducted 1/3 part from income for his personal expenses and assessed the amount Rs.2000/- for compensation. Considering age of deceased at the time of accident as 35 years, according to post mortem report, applied multiplier of 16 and calculated compensation as Rs.3,84,000/-. For funeral expenses awarded Rs.2,000/-, and for love and affection to wife, mother and children Rs.10,000/-. Thus issue No.2 has been decided in favour of plaintiffs and compensation of Rs.3,96,000/- has been awarded to plaintiffs.
6.4 Accordingly, vide judgment dated 4-4-2008 the suit was decreed for payment of compensation Rs.3,96,000/- to plaintiffs along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 20-7-2005.
7. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree present first appeal has been filed. Vide order dated 21-7-2008, this court stayed operation of the judgment dated 4-4-2008 on deposit of 50% amount of the compensation amount.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree as also other material available on record.
9. Learned counsel for AVVNL has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside as the trial court has not considered the fact that the deceased was mentally retarted person and it was his carelessness due to which he suffered electric current for which the department cannot be held responsible. Further the trial court for compensation applied the principles of Motor Vehicles Act while the suit was filed under provisions of the Indian Fatal Act. Therefore findings of the trial court are perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set aside.
10. Per contra, counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that the defendants’ witnesses themselves admitted that branches of tree were touching electric line of 11000 KV as such admittedly the electric line was not at a proper height due to which deceased suffered electric current. The trial court has considered evidence of both parties and has rightly decided issues according to evidence of parties holding the defendant liable to pay compensation.
11. Heard. Considered.
12. Chapter IV of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 relates to General Safety Requirements and Rules 29 and 77(3) thereof read as under:-
29. Construction, installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric supply lines and apparatus.-- (1) All electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient ratings for power, insulation and estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty which they may be required to perform under the environmental conditions of installation, and shall be construed, installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, the relevant code of practice of the Bureau of Indian Standards including National Electrical Code if any may be followed to carry out the purposes of this rule and in the event of any inconsistency, the provision of these rules shall prevail.
(3) The material and apparatus used shall conform to the relevant specifications of the Bureau of Indian Standards where such specifications have already been laid down.
Rule 77 (3) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 provides that:-
77. Clearance above ground of the lowest conductor.
(1) x x x
(2) x x x
(3) No conductor of an overhead line including service lines, erected elsewhere than along or across any street shall be at a height less than-
(a) for low, medium and high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts, if bare 4.6 metres
(b) for low, medium and high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts, if insulated 4.0 metres
(c) for high voltage lines above 11,000 volts 5.2 metres
A perusal of aforesaid Rules 29 and 77(3) of the Rules of 1956 clearly provides for necessary requirements for general safety to be followed by appellant JVVNL, according to which the appellant JVVNL is duty bound to follow requirements properly in letter and spirits of the Rules of 1956.
13. From the factual matrix of this case negligence on the part of defendants AVVNL by non maintaining High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV at the appropriate height is clear. At the site wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were very low and loose and near the tree, due to which deceased was electrocuted. Once it is established that wires of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were not maintained and were very low and loose due to which deceased got electrocuted, the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability comes in play. The defendants would be strictly and vicariously liable to compensate persons affected by accidents without being any fault of their and due to negligence on the part of AVVNL.
14. In case of Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi [(2000)3 SCC 754] [LQ/SC/1994/650] the Apex Court held that once it is established that death occurred on account of electrocution while walking on road necessarily authorities concerned must be held responsible for their negligence and compensation was awarded.
15. In case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar [AIR 2000 SC 551 [LQ/SC/1999/1264] ] the Apex Court held that “it is the responsibility of the Electricity Board to supply electric energy, but if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. The liability cast on such person is known as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of 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. The principle of strict liability was considered in paras 8 and 9, which reads thus:-
“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 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 Law Reports (3) HL 330], Blackburn J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision:
The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, 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 so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.”
16. In Kumari Kani Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board [2016(3) CDR 1499 (Raj.)], this court applied the principle of strict liability and held that “Electricity Company is liable to pay compensation when accident occurs because of such electricity lines which are not maintained properly”. To hold so reliance was placed on Raman Vs. State of Haryana [2015 ACJ 484 [LQ/SC/2014/1373] ], wherein the Apex Court held that “on failure to use all reasonable means to prevent escape of an inherently dangerous thing, which by nature electricity is, the standard of care will be very high and the onus would on the supplier to show that there was not negligence.”
17. On appreciation of factual and legal position aforesaid, findings of trial court with regard to issue No.1 are found well within jurisdiction and parameters of law, which do not suffer from any perversity. This is a proved case of plaintiffs where the deceased died due to electrocution because of negligence on the part of defendants in not maintaining electric line properly. Thus findings of trial court on issue No.1 are affirmed.
18. The issue remains for consideration of this court is with regard to issue No.2 regarding compensation amount.
19. The Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi [(2017)16 SCC 680] [LQ/SC/2015/1437] held in para 52 as under:-
The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. It would be condign that the amount quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years.”
In para No.57 the Apex court held thus:-
“Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. And addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
20. The trial court did not apply the aforesaid principle in correct perspective, as for funeral only Rs.2,000/- has been awarded and for loss of love and affection of wife, mother and children only Rs.10,000/- has been awarded. In view of judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) the compensation is not proper, however, since claimants have not made any such prayer, therefore, the amount so awarded is held to be proper and no interference in findings of issue No.2 is called for and same are affirmed.
21. After discussion made herein above it stands concluded that deceased died due to electrocution and because of negligence on the part of AVVNL, and therefore, according to the principle of strict liability the department is absolutely liable to compensate sufferers. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial court. The amount of compensation Rs.3,96,000/- as awarded by the trial court is confirmed. Impugned award stands confirmed. The compensation amount as deposited and remaining amount of compensation be disbursed to claimants.
22. There is no force in the first appeal and the same is dismissed while affirming the impugned judgment dated 4-4-2008 passed by the trial court and decree be framed accordingly.
23. Record of trial court be sent back forthwith.
