AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rekha Mittal, J.
The present appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) rejecting the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2011 passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs with interest @ 6% per annum in regard to death of Hukam Singh. Varinder Kaur and others, respondents No. 1 to 5 (plaintiffs), (the legal heirs of deceased Hukam Singh) filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 50 lacs as Hukam Singh came in contact with live electric wire of pole of street light and got electrocuted on 06.07.2006. Hukam Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Phase VI, Mohali, then to PGI, Chandigarh and was declared dead in PGI. Post-mortem on the dead body of Hukam Singh was conducted. Hukam Singh was working as S.I.R. in Punjab Engineering College (Deemed. University), Chandigarh and drawing salary of Rs. 16,800/- per month. The deceased was to be promoted as Foreman after about 2 years and earn more than Rs. 25,000/- per month. The respondents claimed an amount of Rs. 50 lacs towards compensation.
The appellants (defendants No. 1 & 2) filed the written statement seriously contesting the claim of the respondents (plaintiffs) and denied their liability to pay any compensation. It was alleged that respondent No. 6 (defendant No. 3) undertook to carry out the maintenance of street lights of poles exclusively meant for street lighting system as per provisions of Indian Electricity Act and Rules, therefore, to indemnify the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short ''the Board'') in case of any accident occurring as a result of maintenance of street lighting system in the area of Municipal Council, Mohali (in short ''the Council''). They have challenged the maintainability of the suit in the present form and suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Respondent No. 6 (defendant No. 3) did not put in appearance to counter the case of private respondents.
The controversy between the parties led to framing of following issues by the learned trial Court:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 50,00,000/- as prayed for along with interest? OPP
Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD
Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
Relief.
The contesting parties were permitted to lead evidence in support of their claims. On due consideration of rival submissions made by counsel and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court answered issue No. 1 in favour of the private respondents whereas issues No. 2 & 3 were decided against the appellants and as a result, the suit of the private respondents was partly decreed to the extent of Rs. 30 lacs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount.
The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was challenged in appeal but it did not find favour with the appellate Court and was dismissed on 28.04.2014 by the judgment, impugned in the present appeal.
Counsel for the appellants contends that the Courts held Hukam Singh guilty of violating traffic rules and committing offence under the Motor Vehicles Act as he has not crossed the road through zebra crossing and rather was crossing the divider on which grill was fixed but still proceeded to fasten liability upon the appellants which is contrary to established canons of law. It is further submitted that nobody can gain premium for his own wrong but it has been so allowed. The findings given by the Courts holding the appellants liable to pay the decreetal amount are perverse in the face of undertaking Ex. D1 given by the Council. As per the said undertaking, the Council undertook to indemnify the liability on account of any act or incident as a result of maintenance of the street lights in the area of Council.
Another submission made by counsel is that the case filed by the private respondents is not maintainable in view of the procedure provided in the Electricity Act, 2003 but the private respondents never apprised the Board of the occurrence in question to set the statutory mechanism in motion for assessment of compensation.
I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
The plea of the appellants that the deceased himself was guilty in coming in contact with live electric wire by not crossing the road through zebra crossing, the Courts have recorded concurrent findings that there was no zebra crossing existing at the spot for going to Mango park. It was further held that the deceased violated certain traffic rules but the said violation neither absolves the contesting defendants of their liability to pay compensation nor sufficient to prove that the deceased is guilty of composite or contributory negligence for the occurrence.
Had the deceased violated certain traffic rules while crossing the road and met with a motor vehicle accident, there could be a plea in defence that the deceased was guilty of negligence. It is none of the plea of the appellant that at the site where electric pole has been installed and electric wires have been laid for the purpose of supply of power, the area was cordoned off by the Board or any sign was put as a warning to the people not to cross from the said area. The matter would have been different had the deceased entered some area wherein the Board had put some prohibitory sign like ''danger'' etc. and got electric shock but it is not so in the present case. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the appellants that the deceased himself was responsible for the occurrence or award of compensation to his legal heirs amounts to giving premium for his negligence.
With regard to the plea of failure of the private respondents to follow the procedure under the Electricity Act, 2003, the said plea being a disputed question of fact cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the second appeal, therefore, untenable.
This brings the Court to the undertaking Ex. D1 allegedly given by the Council in regard to maintenance of street lighting. The appellate Court in para 13 of the judgment has held that as per this undertaking Ex. D1, the Council is liable to indemnify the Board on account of act or accident occurring as a result of maintenance of street lighting system. This undertaking does not absolve the Board from its liability to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. On the basis of this undertaking Ex. D1, the Board has got a right to get indemnified against the Council.
Admittedly, the public is not a privy to any such bilateral understanding between the Board and the Council and for that reason the private respondents cannot be denied their right to claim compensation for the death of their bread earner. The Board is at liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, to recover the amount from the council, if so advised.
In view of the above, the instant appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for decision.
No other point has been raised. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed in limine.