Gramin Vidyut Sahakari Samiti vs Lila Bai

Heard.

By this First Appeal, the defendants no.1 and 2 have challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2000 passed in CS.No.2-A/1999 decreeing the

suit for recovery filed by the respondent no.1 (10).

The respondent no.1 had filed the suit with the plea that her husband Gangaram on 17.11.1997 was coming back after selling the earthen pots and

while passing through the field of Mangilal, he came in contact with the live electric wire which was hanging and instantly died on account of

electrocution and there was no warning board put up by the appellants. It was pleaded that death was caused on account of the negligence of the

officers and employees of the appellant and it was also pleaded that the husband of respondent no.1 was sole bread earner and was earning about

Rs.50,000 to Rs.60,000/- per annum; hence, the compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- was claimed.

The appellant by filing the written statement had denied the liability. The respondents no.2 and 3 (defendants no.3 and 4) were proceeded exparte.

The trial Court after permitting the parties to lead evidence and on examining it has found that the death of Gangaram was caused on account of

electrocution on coming in contact with hanging live electric wire and the appellant Society was in charge of maintaining the Electricity Distribution

and electrical line on the spot and was negligent. The tribunal also found that the appellant could not establish the objection relating to non-service of

notice in terms of Section 94 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act,1960 (for short “the Act of 1960); hence the trial Court passed a judgment and

decree of Rs.85,000/- in favour of respondent no.1 with the further direction that the decreetal amount will bear the interest @ 10% from the date of

filing of the suit.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since no notice to the appellant/Society was served as required by Section 94 of the Act of 1960;

therefore, the appellant is not liable and that there was no negligence on the part of the officers and employees of the appellant; therefore, liability has

wrongly been fixed.

Opposing the submission, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that there is no proof that the appellant is a Society registered under the Act

and the negligence has duly been proved.

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions only two issues arise for consideration before this Court as under:-

(1) whether the suit of respondent no.1 will fail on account of non-service of notice under Section 94 of the Act of 1960.

(2) Whether the officers and employees of the appellant were negligent and the liability has wrongly been fastened on the appellant.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that so far as the first issue is concern the trial Court in this

regard had framed the issue no.10 and after examining the oral as well as the documentary evidence the finding against the appellant has been

recorded. While answering the issue no.10, the trial Court has duly taken in to account the documents Exhibits P-1 to P-9 which were relating to the

notice given by the respondent no.1 and has noted that these documents have remained unrebutted.

That apart for Section 94 of the Act will be attracted only if the appellant is a Society registered under the Act of 1960. Section 2 (z) of the Act

defines the society to be a co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Act and Section 94 is applicable in respect of

institution of a suit against a society.

This Court in the matter of Mukesh Vs.Deonarayan and others reported in 1987 JLJ 572 has considered the similar issue and has held that Section 94

has no application in respect of a society not registered under the Act or not deemed to be registered.

In the present case, there is no pleading or evidence on the part of the appellant that the appellant is a society registered under the Act of 1960.

Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the order of this Court dated 16.7.2010 passed in C.R.No.120/2008 in the case of Parivahan Nigam

Karmchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. Navjyoti Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore but in that case registration of the

Society under the Act was not in dispute.

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the trial Court in answering the issue no.10 and rejecting the

objection of the appellants based upon non-service of notice under Section 94 of the Act of 1960.

So far as the second argument advanced before this Court about no negligence on the part of the officers and employees of the appellant it is noticed

that the trial Court in this regard has examined the evidence in detail. The evidence of PW-2 Nandlal and PW-3 Dr. K.C.Kothari read along with

postmortem report Ex-P-10 clearly reveals that the husband of respondent no.1 had died on account of electrocution. The witnesses have clearly

stated before the Court that live electric wire was hanging and the deceased had come in contact with that. PW-2 Nandlal who had reached the spot

immediately after the incident had stated that he had seen Gangaram in contact with the live electric wire and had separated him by means of wooden

stick and Gangaram had died on the spot. The PW-1 Leelabai has also stated that in the field of Mangilal live electric wire was hanging and there was

no notice put up. The DW-1 Manoj Kumar the sole witness of the appellant has stated that whenever the work of maintenance of electric line is done

the supply is closed but no board is put up. Evidence show that the appellant was responsible for maintaining the electricity line. Therefore, the lapse

on the part of the appellant is reflected from the statement of their own witness.

Having regard to the aforesaid oral and the documentary evidence no error has been committed by the Trial Court in reaching to the conclusion that

the accident had taken place on account of the lapse on the part of the officers and employees of the appellant and fixing the liability on the appellant.

Hence, no merit is found in the appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.