In S.B. Civil F.A. No. 305/2008-RAJ HC- Victim died due to electrocution and because of negligence on part of AVVNL: Rajasthan HC confirms Trial Court order directing Ajmer Electricity Department to pay compensation of Rs 3.96 lakh
Justice Sudesh Bansal [02-09-2022]

 

Read Order: AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD & OTHERS V. SMT LAD KANWAR & OTHERS 

LE Correspondent

Jaipur, September 12, 2022: Confirming the order of compensation awarded by the Trial Court, the Rajasthan High Court has opined that Rules 29 and 77(3) of the Rules of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 clearly provides for necessary requirements for general safety to be followed by authorities in letter and spirit.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal dismissed  the  instant first  appeal  instituted under Section 96 CPC  against the judgment and decree dated April 4, 2008  passed by the Additional District Judge in Suit of 2005,  whereby and where under the suit was decreed  wherein  compensation claimed  under the Indian Fatal Accident Act, 1855 and the same was allowed  allowed.  Compensation of Rs.3, 96,000/- was awarded to the plaintiffs against appellant AVVNL on account of death of their husband, father and son due to electrocution. 

The Single Judge bench was of the view that the 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 was absolutely liable to compensate sufferers. 

The factual matrix of the case was such that the respondents- 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 May 6, 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/-

The appellants denied the allegation of negligence and also denied that any pole was broken or electricity line was changed. 

The Trial court, considering the enquiry report of the 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 trees, it was carelessness of the department that they did not cut the same. 

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the first appeal has been filed. Through an order dated July 21, 2008 this court stayed operation of the judgment dated April 4, 2008 on deposit of 50% of the compensation amount.

After considering the submissions of the parties, the Court took into account Chapter IV of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which relates to General Safety Requirements. 

In view of the same, the Court noted that Rules 29 and 77(3) of the Rules of 1956 clearly provides for necessary requirements for general safety to be followed by appellant AVVNL, according to which the appellant AVVNL is duty bound to follow requirements properly in letter and spirits of the Rules of 1956.

In furtherance of the same, the Court also noted that 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 was clear. At the site, wires of the High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were very low and loose near the tree, due to which the deceased was electrocuted.

 Once it is established that wires of the High Voltage Electricity Line of 11,000 KV were not maintained and were very low and loose due to which the deceased got electrocuted, the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability comes into play, the Court noted. 

The defendants would be strictly and vicariously liable to compensate persons affected by accidents without any fault of theirs and due to negligence on the part of AVVNL, the Court further remarked. 

At this stage reliance was placed on the case of  Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi.

Further reliance was placed on the case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar.

In light of the observations stated above,  the Court concluded by observing that the 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 was absolutely liable to compensate sufferers. 

Thus, there was 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 was confirmed. The Impugned award stood confirmed. The compensation amount as deposited and remaining amount of compensation be disbursed to claimants. 

There was no force in the first appeal and the same was accordingly dismissed.