State Of Tripura And Ors vs Chamati Majumder And Ors

Heard Mrs. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

By filling the instant application, the claimant-respondents have claimed compensation from the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,(TSECL) due to death of the husband of the claimant-respondent No.1, Smt. Chamati Majumder for negligence on the part of the Electricity Department (TSECL).

In a brief outline of the material facts, the claimants have stated in their plaint that on 20.02.2009, the deceased had went to cut down bamboo from bamboo bush and it was not noticed by him that the said bamboo bush was already in contact with a live electric wire having 66 KV high-voltage. While cutting, the bamboo came in contact with live electric wire and Binode Majumder, the husband of the claimant-respondent No.1 had died on the spot.

The matter was informed to police station and an unnatural death case was registered bearing No.5 of 2009 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased Binode Majumder had instituted the suit claiming damages before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.1 and the said case was registered as M.S. No. 03 of 2010.

The suit was contested by TSECL by filing written statement. The learned Court in course of proceeding had framed issues and after recording evidence and having heard the learned counsels had allowed the suit and awarded Rs.5,61,600/- only towards the damages to the plaintiff-claimants vide judgement dated 19.12.2016.

Challenging the legality and validity of the said judgment, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., (TSECL, for short) has filed the instant appeal before this Court.

Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the electricity department and the deceased had died out of his own negligence. Her submission is that before cutting the bamboo trees, the deceased never informed the Department (TSECL) to shut down the electricity connection of the live electric wires laid over the bamboo bush. So, there would have been no actionable claim against the appellant.

Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel has further drawn my attention to the fact that the claimant-respondents herein have made contradictory statements. One of the brothers of the deceased had lodged a complaint which was registered as FIR. In the said complaint, he stated that while cutting the bamboo, it had fallen down and touched the live electricity wire and as a result the deceased died as the same came in contact with 66 K.V. line. But, in the plaint they have stated that:-

"When he was cutting a bamboo from the said bamboo jhar it was already touched with a live 66 K.V. high voltage electric wire and he had not seen the bamboo touched with the live electric wire."

On the other hand, Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents has submitted that the deceased-husband of the claimant-respondent No.1 had died only due to sheer negligence on the part of TSECL. As such they are responsible and liable to pay compensation due to the damage the claimants have suffered out of the said accident. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has drawn my attention to a statement made by the claimant-respondent No.1 in her cross-examination which is as under:-

"Over head electric wire was running over the bamboo bush over the house of Subal Deb".

Heard the learned counsels of both the parties and perused the evidence and materials on record.

In the written statement, the TSECL, the appellants herein has categorically stated that:-

"The height of the bamboo became higher than the electric line and there was every possibility to come into contact with the live electric wire of the bamboo if it was cut down. So, the deceased ought to have informed the Electricity Corporation to take precaution or disconnect the power connection on the wire before cutting the bamboo as because the nature of accident was preconceived. But the deceased or any other person neither informed the Electricity Corporation nor take any precaution before cutting the bamboo. Hence, due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased the accident was occurred......"

The TSECL has also adduced the evidence. It is admitted in their affidavit that the deceased was cutting bamboo when one bamboo had fallen on the 66 KV high voltage electric line which was passing through the road and the said Binode Majumder was electrocuted and subsequently died.

In view of such evidence and materials on record, it is established that the deceased was cutting bamboo and at that time, the bamboo came in contact with the 66 K.V. electricity line and due to that he died on the spot. I find there is no material contradiction in the case of the plaintiffs. The TSECL has admitted in their written statement that the height of the bamboo became higher than that of the electric line and there was every possibility to come into contact with the live electric wire and the bamboo, if it was cut down.

In my opinion, the TSECL was well aware of the fact that the height of the bamboo became higher than the electric line which at any point of time could have caused accident. In that situation, it was obligatory upon the TSECL to take all possible measures either to save the trees or to do other precautionary measures to prevent any accident. But, they have failed to discharge their obligations. Thus, in my opinion, there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, rather, the TSECL is found to be negligent of proper and adequate vigilance. The learned trial Judge also came to the finding that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff-respondents and the electricity department i.e., the TSECL should be more vigilant to prevent any accident.

I am in full agreement with the learned Civil Judge and I am not inclined to interfere with the findings returned by learned Trial Judge. Having held so, I find no merit in the present appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed.