AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiffs No. 1,2 and 6 have filed the instant second appeal after the Plaintiffs i.e. Appellants and performa Respondents No. 5 and 6 and Ashok (not party to the instant second appeal) were successful in the trial court but have been non-suited by the lower Appellate Court.
Plaintiffs, who are wife, sons and daughters of Jaipan @ Jaipal, claimed compensation for his death by electrocution alleging that the death occurred on account of negligence of the Defendants (Respondents No. 1 to 4). It was pleaded that electric line of 11000 voltage laid by the Defendants was passing over Harijan Basti including the house of the Plaintiffs at a height 12 feet from the ground. Inspite of resolution dated 28.09.1993 passed by Gram Panchayat, the Defendants did not shift the electricity lines. Another application was given to the Defendants on 02.06.2002 and also on 22.01.2004. The death of Jaipan @ Jaipal occurred on 31.05.2002 while he was installing hand pump and was making bore for the same and bokki (instrument used for making the bore) touched the electric wire.
Defendants denied their negligence. It was pleaded that HT line of 11 KV is at height of 20 feet from the ground level and it was not crossing over the houses. There was no house in the area when the line was laid. Various others pleas were also raised.
Learned Civil Judge(Senior Division) Bhiwani, vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007, decreed the Plaintiff''s suit for compensation of ` 4 lacs. However, first appeal preferred by Defendants has been allowed by learned District Judge, Bhiwani, vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2009 and thereby, suit filed by the Plaintiffs stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, Plaintiffs No. 1,2 and 6 have filed the instant second appeal.
I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and perused the case filed.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently contended that inspite of resolution dated 28.09.1993 sent by Gram Panchayat to Defendants, the electricity line was not shifted and therefore, the incident resulting in death of Jaipan @ Jaipal by electrocution occurred on account of negligence of the Defendants. It was also contended that the electricity line was passing over the houses in Harijan Basi resulting in the unfortunate incident on account of negligence of the Defendants.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. It is the Plaintiffs'' own case that the deceased was making bore for installation of hand pump. While doing so, he was using bokki and taking it up and down. Resultantly, the bokki touched the electricity line resulting in electrocution of the deceased. The deceased, while making the bore for installation of hand pump, was well aware of the electricity line passing over head. It was, therefore, fault of the deceased himself that he did not take proper care to ensure that the pipe (bokki) being used by him, did not touch the line.
There is no documentary evidence to depict that resolution dated 28.09.1993 was actually handed over to the Defendants. Similarly, there is no evidence regarding moving of any application for shifting of the line. On the other hand, the house of the Plaintiffs was constructed long after the line had been laid by the Defendants. This fact has come in the statements of Plaintiffs own witnesses i.e. Roshan Lal (PW-2) and Mahender Singh (PW-3). It is evident that house of the Plaintiffs was not even in existence when the electricity line was laid. The Plaintiffs themselves constructed their house there and therefore, the Defendants cannot be blamed for the same.
For the reasons aforesaid, finding of the lower Appellate Court that negligence of the Defendants for electrocution of Jaipan @ Jaipal is not established is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said findings does not call for interference in the second appeal. This appeal does not raise any question of law, much less substantial question of law, for determination.
The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.