IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 160 of 2004 Date of Decision : 4.11.2008 Dawa Lama ..…Appellant-plaintiff. Versus: H.P.S.E.B. & another …Respondents-defendants Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. G. S. Sisodia, vice Mr. R. K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral). Plaintiff, Shri Dawa Lama has filed the present appeal assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.5.2002, passed by the District Judge, Kullu, H. P., in Civil Suit No. 7/2001 titled as Dawa Lama vs. H.P.S.E.B. & another, dismissing his suit for recovery of damages. On 29.12.1999, plaintiff a mason was working near Bhanu Pul, village Ranghri, Manali, H. P., when he allegedly received an electric shock from the live wire of a 33 KV transmission line installed by the defendant Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. From the alleged shock, he received severe burn injuries of such a degree that his left arm had to be imputed thus, rendering him permanently disabled and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 handicapped. He sustained 50% permanent disability. Consequently, he filed a suit claiming damages for a sum of Rs.4 lacs by way of compensation. The defendants filed written statement admitting that as per specification the transmission line was installed but specifically denied the incident. The plaintiff could not have suffered any electric shock as no live wire had loosened. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendants installed 33 KV transmission line negligently at Bahanupul and not at safe height from the ground as alleged? …..OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff on 29.12.99 while working as mason at Bahanupul near Ranghri suffered electric shock and burn injuries due to earthing of the 33 KV electric transmission line and mishap occurred due to negligence of the defendant as alleged? ….OPP 3. Whether due to burn injuries left forearm of the plaintiff was amputated, if so, to what effect? ..OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages claimed in the suit? …….OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? ……..OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to sue? ……OPD 7. Relief. Appreciating the material on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the incident as also the fact that he had received burn injuries which 3 resulted into the amputation of his left arm. Consequently, all issues were decided against him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, his companion mason Shri Neema Sherpa (PW- 2) and Dr. Om Paul Sharma (PW-3), who proved disability certificate Ext.PW-3/A. Plaintiff placed on record bills for purchase of medicine which marked (Mark 1 to 8) as not having proved in accordance with law. In rebuttal, the defendants examined Shri Satish Kumar (DW-1) Asstt. Executive Engineer of the defendant Board. Documents Mark 1 to 8, even though not exhibited, do not advance the case of the plaintiff except to show that some expenditure was incurred for purchase of medicine. Dr. Om Paul Sharma (PW-3) has only proved the disability certificate Ext.PW-3/A, which proves the plaintiff permanent disability as his left arm had been amputed. He has deposed nothing about the cause or nature of the burn injuries received by the plaintiff. Except for the oral statements of PW-1 and PW-2, there is no other oral or documentary evidence on record. No doubt PW-1 has deposed that he was working on the boulder in the fields adjacent to the transmission line laid by the department and received a shock from the loose wire but even he has not deposed that any loose wire from the transmission line had fallen and that he came in contact with the 4 same and received an electric shock which caused the burn injuries. The plaintiff’s statement is to the effect that while he was working on the rock below the transmission line, he got electric shock and was thrown at some distance. No doubt PW-2 has supported this version of the plaintiff but however, the fact of the matter is that none of the plaintiff’s witnesses has deposed as to how the plaintiff came in contact with the electric equipment installed for the 33 KV electric Transmission Line. According to this witness, the plaintiff was admitted in the hospital first at Manali and thereafter at Kullu. Plaintiff has neither produced any record nor examined any doctor to prove the nature, the extent of injury or the treatment received by him in the hospital. There is nothing on record to show that the amputation of his arm was as a direct result and cause of the burn injuries which he received from the electric shock which he suffered while working at the relevant time and place of the alleged incident. PW-2 has mentioned about prior incidents of a girl and a cow having received electric shock but there is nothing to prove the same. In fact his statement that PW-1 received an electric shock cannot be believed as he has deposed that both of them were working on the opposite sides of the big boulder which had a height of 2 mtrs. They could not see each other.Futher if PW-2 was working at the site then how is it that he did not receive the electric shok and sustained injury. The trial Court, in my view, has rightly held that for concealing record of the medical treatment an adverse inference 5 has to be drawn against the plaintiff. There is no explanation as to why the same was not produced. The plaintiff’s witnesses have also admitted that the matter was not reported by them to the police. It is surprising that inspite of the fact that the plaintiff received burn injuries and incurred heavy expenditure for medical treatment, yet the matter was not reported to either the police or the defendant board any time prior to the filing of the suit. On the contrary, DW-1 has specifically deposed that in the year 1995, 33 KV Transmission line was down graded and a new line of 11 KV was installed. At the time of the alleged incident, the entire line was properly maintained. On the date of the incident, neither any pole nor any electric wire had either loosened or fallen nor any report was lodged by any person with the defendant board. In cross-examination, it was clarified that the height of the wires was approximately 20 to 22 feet from the road level. Therefore, it was not possible for any person to even came in contact with the same. He clarified that if any loose wire falls on the ground, the electric connection is automatically disconnected and on the date of the incident, no such act of tripping was noticed at the 33/11 KV Sub Division. He denied any negligence on the part of the department in installing the electric equipment. Considering the entire material on record, it cannot be said that the Board had been negligent in maintaining 33/11 KV Transmission Line. It has not been proved that the plaintiff 6 received any burn injuries from an electric shock which he allegedly received due to the loosening of the live electric wire of 33/11 KV Transmission Line. The Court below has considered the entire material in its entirety. There is no illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.5.2002 passed by the District Judge, Kullu. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. November 4, 2008. (rana)