Premsukh Talkies and Others vs Harikishan

A.K. Awasthy, J.—The appellants/defendants have filed the appeal u/s 96 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.1997 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 162-B/1988, whereby the claim for damages of Rs, 30,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum was awarded to the respondent/plaintiff.

The admitted facts of the case are that Premsukh Talkies at Indore is being run by registered firm defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are its partners.

That the plaintiff Harikishan was watching the picture in the cinema hall on 22.11.1988 of the show from 9.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. and at about 10.00 p.m. the plaintiff got the shock from the electric current while sitting on his seat and he fainted in the cinema hall.

The case of the plaintiff is that the chairs on which he was sitting with his friends were having the iron rods and on account of the negligence in the maintenance, electric current leaked from the iron rods and he got electric shock and fainted therein. That he was taken to M.Y. Hospital for his treatment in the hospital and thereafter he was taken to the private hospital for his treatment of the fracture in the leg. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a business man and earning 1,500/- rupees per month and he has prayed for the actual expenses in his medical treatment along with the damage due to mental agony.

The case of the defendants is that the accident has not taken place on account of negligence or fault in the maintenance of the electric cables in the cinema hall. It is alleged that the defendants have taken all the precautions and current of only 12 volts was flowing from the wire which is not capable of causing the shock and the injury.

The learned Trial Court after examining Kanhaiyalal (P.W.-1), Harikishan Garg (P.W.-2), Babulal (P.W.-3), Dr. Ashish Melhotra (P.W.-4), Mohanlal (P.W.-5) and from the defendants side Arun Kumar (D.W.-1), Bharat Kumar (D.W.-2) has come to the conclusion that the injuries were received by the plaintiff on account of the improper maintenance of the electric wires and as such the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 30,000/- as damages along with interest @ 12% per annum.

The appellants/defendants have assailed the decree on the ground that the learned Trial Court has wrongly concluded that the accident has taken place on account of the improper maintenance of the electric wires and as such the appeal be allowed and the suit be dismissed.

The statement of Harikishan Garg (P.W.-2) that he received electric shock while seeing the picture is corroborated by Kanhaiyalal (P.W.-1), who was also watching the picture with him. The defendants have examined Bharat Kumar (D.W.-2), who was working as booking clerk in the cinema hall and he has admitted that the plaintiff received, while watching movie, electric current and he was fainted on the chair and taken to the hospital. Dr. Ashish Malhotra (P.W.-4) has stated that he is Orthopaedic Surgeon and he is doing the private practice and on 13.8.1986 he found the right femur bone of the plaintiff had a fracture and he was treated for the ailment. Consequently, it is clear that the plaintiff has received the injuries due to the electric current in the cinema hall while he was witnessing the picture.

The doctrine of "strict liability" is laid down in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and Others, , wherein it is held that a person undertaking an activity involving risky exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the Managers in such undertaking.

It is difficult to know for the victim that the proper care and maintenance was taken by the Manager of the cinema hall. The fact that the current from the cables in the cinema hall percolated on the seat of the viewers itself per se goes to show that there was negligence on the part of the Manager in the proper maintenance. The plaintiff is a business man and he was treated in M.Y. Hospital by Dr. Ashish Malhotra for his injuries. In the circumstances the amount of Rs. 30,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum as a compensation was rightly awarded by the learned Trial Court to the respondent/plaintiff.

The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Parties ia bear their own costs of the appeal. A decree be drawn up accordingly.