AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] Heard Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited as well as Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents.
[2] This is an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC from the judgment dated 20.07.2016 delivered in M.S. 19 of 2014. Briefly stated the facts, relevant for appreciation of the solitary ground that has been raised in this appeal is that the plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for realizing the damage on account of death of Haradhan Sarkar who died of electrocution on the intervening night 05.11.2012 and 06.11.2012 on alleged negligence of the appellant.
[3] The damage as claimed is Rs.40,00,000/-. The electrocution is attributed to snapping of High Voltage electric live line from the pole. When the deceased came accidentally in touch with the said electric line he was electrocuted and died in spot. The solitary ground that has been asserted by Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel is that Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited being the Principal has not been made party. However, its principal officers have been made party.
[4] According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel the suit is seriously hit by the non-joinder of the necessary party inasmuch as, unless the Principal is made party, the officers who are working under the Principal cannot be saddled with obligation emerging from the death by electrocution.
[5] Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has relied a decision of this court in Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. Smti. Chameli Majumder and Others (Judgment dated 14.07.2016 delivered in RSA No.01 of 2013) where this court had occasion to observe inter alia, on the pretext of simplifying the process, this court must not fail to ensure observance of Order 29, Rule 2 of the CPC inasmuch as when the corporation has not been made party, according to that provision, the functionaries may only represent or accept the summons or notice. Without impleading the body-corporate, [the principal] which is the entity, no liability through its assigns can be saddled upon it. The delegates always represent, but they are not the principal. The trial court by its decree has directed 'the corporation' to pay the amount knowing fully well that 'the corporation' was not in the array of parties. The way this aspect has been addressed by the first appellate court, this court is constrained to observe that, that view cannot be sustained. That apart, the decree can hardly be executed against those officers who have been added as the defendants in the suit leaving 'the corporation' at lurch
[6] Following this observation, this court had remanded the matter with liberty to the plaintiffs of that suit to add the corporation as the party. The trial court was directed to complete the adjudication within a reasonable period and also such period was stipulated in that judgment.
[7] Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents has immediately submitted that if similar decision had been passed by this court, he will not have any objection. On such consensus being formed in the bar, the impugned judgment stands interfered with on the ground of non-impleadment and set aside. The suit is remanded to the trial court with liberty to the plaintiff to take appropriate steps to add the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited [the principal] as the party. After the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited is arraigned as the party, the suit shall proceed expeditiously. No fresh summon is required to be sent on impleadment.
[8] Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that he would appear in the trial court and if, by the leave of the trial court, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited is added as the party-defendant, he may accept the summons by waiving the formal process. On the basis of the said undertaking, the trial court is directed to serve the summons to Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel who has also appeared for the defendants [the officers of the Corporation]. It is needless to say, that on impleadment the corporation shall be given opportunity to file the written statement. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has further undertaken that if a short time is provided they would file the written statement, subject to the impleadment.
[9] The trial court is directed to complete the adjudication preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the records considering that the suit was initially instituted in the year of 2014 and it is related to realization of damages on account of the death of the sole earning member in the family.
[10] Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Draw the decree accordingly.
Send down the LCRs forthwith.