Mst. Saraswati vs Sooraj Prasad

A.K. Awasthy, J.—Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8.4.1992 in Civil Suit No. 7-B of 1989 passed by the Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Panna dismissing the suit for compensation of Rs. 35,000/-, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

The case of the plaintiff is that deceased Shobha was her widow daughter and she has died on 22.7.1986 by the shock of the electric current in the house of the respondent/defendant while she was working in his house as a labour employed by the respondent/defendant. The appellant/plaintiff has prayed that the defendant be directed to pay Rs. 35,000/- as compensation.

Respondent/defendant has denied that the deceased Shobha was engaged by him to work in his house. It is also denied that she has died in his house while working as a labour. Respondent has stated that the appellant is not the mother of deceased Shobha and as such she is not entitled for damages.

Learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff has not proved that the deceased was employed by the respondent and that she has died while working for the respondent. It is also held that it is not proved that the appellant is entitled to get compensation on account of the death of Mst. Shobha. Learned Trial Court has accordingly dismissed the suit.

Respondent/defendant Suraj Prasad has stated that the deceased was not employed as a labour by him and she has not died in his house while working for him. The appellant has not led any evidence whatsoever to prove that the death of Mst. Shobha was on account of shock from electric wire. No medical evidence was produced nor any witness was examined to show whether the death of Mst. Shobha was natural, suicidal, homicidal or accidental. There is no eye%. witness in the case and no evidence to show that how, when the where Mst. Shobha came in contact with the naked electric wire. No evidence was adduced by the appellant to show that Shobha at the time of the incident was working as a labour of the respondent.

Learned Trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for any compensation as her case that Mst. Shobha died due to shock of electric current while working for the respondent in his house is not proved.

The appeal, being sans of merit, is hereby dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.