1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by appellant-defendant JVVNL (hereafter `the JVVNL’) against the judgment and decree dated 28-3-2003 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in suit No.62/1998, whereby and whereunder the suit under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was decreed for compensation of Rs.5,57,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum to plaintiffs on account of death of deceased Bishna Ram due to electrocution.
2. The facts of the case are that respondents plaintiffs (hereinafter 'plaintiffs') wife and sons of deceased Bishna Ram filed a civil suit claiming compensation on account of death of Bishna Ram, aged 32 years, who died on 23-6-1997 due to electrocution, while he was going to his agricultural field with bullock cart and calf near Dayal's agricultural field electricity wire of 11,000 KV was broken and lying on road due to which deceased suffered current and died on spot. Along with him Bulls and calf also died. It was averred that the deceased Bishna Ram was an agriculturists and due to negligence on the part of defendants he died, hence, the suit was filed for compensation to the tune of Rs.23,06,000/-.
3. On issuing notices JVVNL filed written statement on 18- 12-1998, which was amended on 16-8-2002. They denied allegation of negligence and stated that no wire was broken as no such information was received about breaking of electricity wire of 11000 KV. Further their contention is that as soon as electric wire breaks, electricity supply disconnects automatically. There was no information to department about the fatal accident. It was stated that if due to natural calamity electricity wire breaks, the department cannot be held responsible. However, they did not deny the factum of death of deceased due to electrocution. It was stated that suit for compensation cannot be filed for death of bull, buffalo, calf etc. therefore, the same be dismissed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed five issues. First, whether on 23-6-1997 in morning while Bishna ram was going to his field in village Hattupura, near the field of Dayal wire of 11000 kV line was broken due to which Bishnaram died along with bulls, buffalo, and calves Second, whether Bishnaram died due to negligence of defendants in maintaining electricity line Third, whether plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,06,000/- Fourth, Relief Fifth, whether plaintiff’s suit under Fatal Accident Act, for compensation for death of bulls, buffaloes and calf is maintainable
Plaintiffs examined PW1. Lada Devi, PW2. Heera, PW.3 Ratan Lal, PW.4 Govind Singh, PW.5 Dayal, PW.6 Dr. Salil Maheshwari and PW.7 Binjaram and exhibited documents. Defendants examined one witness DW.1 Ashok Kumar Gupta.
5. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties. PW.1 Lada devi in her statement stated that while she reached on spot she saw that electricity wire was lying on road, her husband was lying on road and smoke was oozing and there was bad smell. Her husband died due to negligence of the lineman. Her statement found support from evidence of other witnesses. PW.3 Ratan Lal stated that as soon as bulls stepped on wire current passed and all Bishnaram, bulls, buffalo, calf died due to electrocution. Dr. Salil Maheshwari verified the post mortem report (Ex.3) and stated that Bishnaram died because of electrocution. The trial court relying on judgment in case of Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi [(2000)3 SCC 754] decided the issue No.1 in favour of plaintiffs. Since there was no evidence regarding natural calamity for breaking electricity wire, the issue No.2 was decided in favour of plaintiffs. The trial Court in absence of any proof of source of income of deceased, assessed the income of deceased as Rs.4000/- per month, and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, assessed an amount of Rs.32,000/- per year, and applying the multiplier of 17, assessed the compensation of Rs.5,44,000/-, for funeral Rs.2000/-, for consortium Rs.5000/-, for love and affection of children Rs.6000/-, thus, total compensation Rs.5,57,000/- has been awarded and as such the issue No.3, decided in favour of plaintiffs. With regard to issue No.5, the trial Court concluded that there is no evidence on record that bull, buffalo and calf died because of electrocution, therefore, the issue decided against plaintiffs. In view of decisions of issues aforesaid, the trial Court decreed suit vide judgment dated 27-11-2010 for compensation of Rs.5,57,000/- to be paid with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the suit.
6. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree present first appeal has been filed.
Vide orders dated 30.05.2003 and 19.09.2003, this Court directed appellant to furnish either a solvent surety or bank guarantee for the decretal amount.
7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree as also other material available on record.
8. Learned counsel for defendants has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside as the trial court has not considered that there was no information in the department about breaking of electricity wire, therefore, the department cannot be held guilty or negligent in maintaining the electricity line. No complaint of such nature was made to the department, nor any information regarding death of deceased was given in the department. No FIR was lodged about the death of deceased. Therefore findings of the trial court are perverse and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set aside.
9. Per contra, counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that from the evidence of PW1 Lada Devi, PW3 Ratan Lal, the fact that deceased died because of electrocution was proved, as also Dr. Salil Maheshwari proved the postmortem report (Ex.3) according to which deceased was lying on electricity wire and his stomach, clothes and hands were burnt from electricity. As such death of deceased because of electrocution was proved and the trial Court has rightly decided issues according to evidence of parties and has rightly awarded compensation to plaintiffs.
10. Heard. Considered.
11. 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 metres 4.6
(b) for low, medium and high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts, if insulated metres 4.0
(c) for high voltage lines above 11,000 volts metres 5.2
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.
12. It is duty and obligation on the part of defendants JVVNL to maintain High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV. Once it is established that wire of High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV was broken due to which the deceased electrocuted, the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability comes in play. The defendant JVVNL 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 JVVNL.
13. In case of Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi [(2000)3 SCC 754] 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.
14. The principle of law as enunciated in case of Parvati Devi (supra) was followed by the Rajasthan High Court in case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Smt. Sukhiya [2000 DNJ (Raj.) 594]. Relevant para 14 thereof reads thus:-
14. It was the duty of the defendants-appellants to install electric wires of adequate strength and to carry out proper maintenance of the electric line. If they failed to perform this duty, they must be liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of deceased. In Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi reported in [(2000)3 SCC 754] , Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:-
“The appellant moved the High Court of Delhi claiming compensation as the husband of appellant-1 died on account of electrocution while walking on the road. That the death was on account of electric shock is established in view of the CFSL report from Calcutta. But as the appellants could not produce relevant materials indicating the negligence of any particular officer or the authority, the High Court refused to award compensation. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed. Once it is established that the death occurred on account of electrocution while walking on the road, necessarily the authorities concerned must be held to be negligent and therefore, in the case in hand, it would be NDMC who could be responsible for the death in question….”
15. In case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar [AIR 2000 SC 551 ] 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 the 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 ], 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. In the Executive Engineer Vs. Pramod [2015(1) KCC R 850] Karnataka High Court held that “the Electricity Board cannot absolve liability on grounds that accident took place due to illegal act on part of victim in trying to draw power from mainline unauthorisedly when once the death is to be in the context of functioning of Board. Principle of strict liability applies and Board is bound to compensate the claimants”.
18. If the case at hand on its facts is examined on the anvil of proposition of law discussed hereinabove, it is found that as far as the factum of death of deceased Bishna Ram died due to electrocution is concerned from the side of plaintiff, PW1 to PW7 have been examined and documents, site map (Ex.1), enquiry report and postmortem report (Ex.3) have been placed on record. PW1 Lada Devi categorically states that her husband died due to sticking with broken electric wires. She stated that when the incident occurred on 23-6- 1997, she reached at the site at about 06:30 AM, there broken electric wire was laying on the road, her husband was fallen on road and villagers were assembled. She stated that there is no other person to earn livelihood for her family. PW2 Heera, PW3 Ratan Lal, PW4 Govind Singh and PW5 Dayal are villagers who were present at the site and have deposed that deceased Bishna Ram died due to coming into contact of electric wire wherein power was in supply. PW6 is the Doctor who has verified the postmortem report and stated that as per symptoms deceased died because of electrocution. PW7 Binjaram states that electric wire was laying in broken condition on road because of negligence of the electricity department. According to evidence of plaintiff as a whole, it stands established that electric line of 11000 KV was broken and live electric wire was fallen on road and while Bishna Ram was going for his agricultural work on 23-6-1997 at 6:30 AM he got electrocuted with such broken electric wire without any fault on his part. His cattle also died at the spot due to electrocution. There is no evidence in rebuttal from the side of JVVNL, hence, the issue No.1 deserves to be decided in favour of plaintiffs.
19. As far as issue No.2 is concerned, there is consistent evidence of plaintiff that the broken wire of 11000 KV power line was lying on road. It is the duty of electricity department to maintain electricity line in proper condition. From the side of department, one Ashok Kumar Gupta DW1 appeared, he admits that at the time of accident on 23-6-1997, he was not posted in that region. He admits that Junior Engineer was posted at that time and is having record of maintaining electric line in proper condition. But no such record has been placed on record. The then Junior Engineer Deendayal has not been produced. There is no evidence on record that there was any heavy rain or storm causing breaking of electric wire. Defendants have not produced their record to establish that High Voltage Line of 11000 KV was inspected and maintained properly. Therefore, in view of evidence of plaintiff and without there being any sufficient evidence from the side of defendant it is proved that electricity department was careless and negligent in maintaining electric line of 11000 KV, due to which deceased Bishna Ram met with an accident and died. Thus issue No.2 is held in favour of plaintiffs.
20. On appreciation of factual and legal position aforesaid, findings of the trial court on issues are found well within jurisdiction and parameters of law, which do not suffer from any perversity. This is a proved case of plaintiffs where deceased died due to electrocution because of negligence on the part of defendant JVVNL in not maintaining electric line properly. Further according to the principle of strict liability the electricity department is absolutely liable to compensate sufferers. Thus, with regard to findings of issues, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial court.
21. Issue No.3 pertains to assessment of quantum of compensation. Deceased Bishna Ram was farmer and a person of 32 years of age, who died because of electrocution and his wife and children- plaintiffs have filed suit for compensation. Although plaintiffs claimed for compensation of Rs.23,06,000/-, but the trial court taking into account deceased’s income as a simple labourer at the rate of Rs.4000/- and deducted 1/3rd for his own use and multiplier of 15 was applied, and Rs.13,000/- (Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for wife and Rs.6000/- for children) calculated and assessed the compensation of Rs.5,57,000/- only. This court finds that compensation awarded is lower side, however, since there is no counter appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation so awarded by the trial court.
22. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court requires no interference by this court and the same deserves to be upheld and is upheld. There is no force in the first appeal filed by defendants appellants JVVNL and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree be framed accordingly.
23. The decretal amount be disbursed to claimants forthwith.
24. Record of trial court be sent to trial court for completion of the exercise of disbursement of decretal amount.
