Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam vs Bherulal and Others

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.

The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 2.6.2000 by which the trial court awarded damages total amounting to Rs. 1,65,500/- to the plaintiffs.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs who were the legal representatives of deceased Hira Lal filed the present suit alleging that defendant No.1 appellant (earlier Raj. State Electricity Board) is liable for the damages caused due to the death of deceased Hira Lal at the age of 30 years on 3rd Oct., 1996. According to plaintiffs the defendant No. 2 respondent No.8 was the helper employed with the appellant. There was an electric connection from the well of the plaintiffs ruining towards the well of Shankar Lal defendant No. 3 and there were five electric poles in the between the plaintiffs well and well of the Shankar Lal. The electric connection of Shankar Lal was disconnected since last few years. According to plaintiffs the electric line from plaintiffs well to the defendant No. 3''s well left carelessly by the appellant/ and appellant''s employees. It is alleged in the plaint that in between 8 AM to 4 PM the defendant No. 1 who was the employee of the appellant connected the wire line of the well of the defendant No.3 and the electric supply was started. It is stated that this was done without obtaining even order from the competent officer. The connection was allowed even when the electric wires were lying in the field,'' that too, connected with the water of the field. On 3rd Oct., 1996 at about 6 AM the deceased Hira Lal was irrigating his field and he met with this accident of coming into contact with the live electric wire resulting into the death of Hira Lal. The claimants claimed in total Rs. 15,58,500 from the defendants on the ground that defendant No. 2 was in employment of the appellant-defendant No. 1 and because of the grave negligence on the part of the employees, Hira Lal died unfortunately at the age of 30 years leaving behind his father, mother, wife, minor daughter and son. A separate reply was filed by the defendant-appellant No. 1 wherein the appellant submitted that they are not aware how the above accident occurred and it was stated that the employees of the defendant No. 1 have not connected the wires but defendants No.2 and 3 by collusion started the electric connection, which was not in the knowledge of the defendant No. 1

The defendants No.2 and 3 filed joint written statement and it was stated that defendant No.2 and 3 have not committed any negligence. It was submitted by the defendants No.2 and 3 that defendants No.2 never commited any negligence in his service and defendants No.2 and 3 were impleaded as party because of enimity. It is also submitted that a case was registered against the defendant No.2 and 3 Under Sections 337, 304-A and 379 I.P.C. read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. In that case the defendants No.2 and 3 were acquitted on 15th May, 1998. The trial court, after framing issues, recorded the evidence of PW-1 Bherulal PW-2 Gordhanlal and PW-3 Mangilal whereas defendants produced witnesses DW-1 Sujal, DW-2 Bhupendra Kumar Chatar and DW-3 Ramchandra. After hearing arguments and examining the evidence produced by the parties, the trial court, while deciding issue No. 1, held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the negligence of Shankar Lal defendant No. 3 It was also relevant to mention here that there is no serious dispute about the fact that deceased Hira Lal died because of the flow of the electric connection as alleged by the plaintiffs. The trial court, while deciding issue No. 2 on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, held that plaintiffs were entitled for Rs. 1,65,500/- as damages.

While challenging the above judgment and decree, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that even as per the statement of PW-1 Bherulal it is clear that the electric connection of the well of the Shankar Lal was disconnected by the appellant and disconnection was since last 10 years. Therefore, when there is no order of the appellant Board for issuing electricity connection in favour of Shankar Lal for his well and when illegal connection was obtained by Shankar Lal with collusion of defendant No.2 Ramchandra then the appellant cannot be held liable. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that defendants No.2 and 3 are relatives. This fact also proves probabilities of obtaining electricity connection by collusion of the defendant No.3 with the help of defendant who was the employee of the appellant.

I perused the evidence of the PW-1 and also other witnesses. Bherulal PW-1 in his statement specifically admitted that electric connection of Shankar Lal was disconnected about 10 years ago. A bare look at the plaint itself it is clear that this is a case set up by the plaintiffs themselves wherein they have specifically pleaded that electric connection of the well of the defendant No.3 was disconnected about 10 years ago. Therefore, when the electric connection was disconnected by the appellant itself then it hardly helps the appellant. The point for determination in the suit was whether deceased Hira Lal died because of the negligent act of the employee of the appellant and whether the appellant is vicariously liable for this. The plaintiffs evidence are clear on the point that even when there was a disconnection order from the well of the Shankar Lal, the employee of the appellant installed the electric line and also gave the electric connection and while doing so the line was left in such a manner which may, in all probability, likely to cause any accident. It is admitted case that Ramchandra was employee of the appellant. It is also proved by the evidence, not only of the plaintiff but also of the witnesses of defendant that the line was installed by the Ramchandra and there is a categorical admission even of the witnesses of the defendant none less than the Jr. Engineer of the appellant who was examined before the trial court as DW-1 wherein DW-1 admitted that on enquiry he found that on 1st Oct., 1996 Shankar Lal and Ramchandra jointly installed the wire. In cross-examination, the appellant''s witness himself admitted that Ramchandra defendant No.2 is employee of the appellant and he gave the electric connection. Not only this, but it is also admitted that before doing so the GSS was shut down and after installation of the wire gave the supply of the electricity. The shut down was cancelled and this was even entered in the register by the Board and this register is lying with the Board.

In view of the admission of the above facts it is clear that Ramchandra was in employment of the RESB and there is an entry for shutting down the supply of electricity for the purpose of installing electricity wire and also there is an entry in the register for start and supply of electricity to the line in dispute. When Ramchandra, employee of the appellant admitted that he installed the electricity on the instruction of Jr. Engineer and the Jr. Engineer instructed one Balu Ram to shut down the main line. It hardly needs further proof and Ramchandra completed the job at the instruction of his higher authority whether a proper order for re-connection or not. Whether there was a proper order passed by the competent authority for issuing electric connection or not, is hardly relevant in the case of damages. Neither the deceased Hira Lal nor the claimants are at all concerned with the proper order if the authorities have not passed any proper order.

The witnesses of the appellant-defendant specifically admitted that no action was taken against Rarnchandra against whom there are allegations of giving unauthorized connection in collusion with the defendant No.3. Rarnchandra against whom there are allegations by the appellant was in service when he was examined on 28th April, 2000. The witness Rarnchandra further, in his statement before the trial court, specifically admitted that he was given oral direction to give connection for defendant No.3 and this is a practice to give oral directions in the department for giving connections.

The trial court while deciding issue No. 1 also found that the register, which was lying with the appellant for giving connection and for start of supply of electricity was not produced by the appellant.

In view of the above discussion and the admission of the witnesses of the defendant when the trial court found grave negligence of the employee of the appellant, and after careful examination of the evidence of the witnesses, I am also of the opinion that Hira Lal died because of the gross negligent act of the employee of the appellant and the appellant''s employee and is liable for the amount decreed by the trial court.

It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed illegality in exonerating the defendant No.3 from the liability. A look at the evidence of the defendants themselves shows that the electric connection was issued on the basis of the direction issued by the Jr. Engineer of the appellant Board to Shankar Lal and the appellant failed to prove that there was no such order. Not only this, witness DW-3 Ramchandra stated categorically that as per the oral instruction the connections are given and in this case also there was oral instruction. Even if there was no proper order of any competent authority and even if there was a direction of the Jr. Engineer of the appellant to give electricity connection to Shankar Lal than also this was the Electricity Department who installed the electric wire and gave the electricity connection. Nothing was in the control of Shankar Lal so as to install the line it self or start electricity connection from the appellant Board. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that Shanker Lal be held liable for the above amount is devoid of any force. Hence the same is rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail the finding recorded on the determination of quantum but the facts show that the amount awarded can be said to be low rather than on higher side. The deceased was 30 years of age only. It was alleged that he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month for which there is evidence of the witnesses that deceased Hira Lal was getting Rs. 100/- per day. The trial court only assessed Income of the deceased as Rs. 1,000/- and deducted Rs. 250/-out of the 1,000/- which is likely to be used for the deceased himself. The multiplier of 15 was applied for awarding the amount. I do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed with costs.