IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CC.G.) FIRST APPEALNO. 6^\ OF ^OlO') ?otl| '.^^!"' \^/'(:-> ^rj UNDER SECTION 9?OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE , ^. . l^) C5- aiPPELLANTS ^e-f^ct&y^ ^- v ^^v^ ^^'^' \^^tsi!° ^. -'"w y ^ "^' Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, through President, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipur Sub Engineer, Rural Area, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raigarh, Office at, Near Gopi Talkies Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS /f^ RESPONDENT P/<^W ^Smt. Munki Bai, W/o Sampat LalSao, aged about 60 years, Caste Teli, Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Bhatanpali, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) ^^°"'. flwte ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal No. 64 of 2011 APPELLANTS Defendants RESPONDENT Plaintiff Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and another. Versus Munki Bai FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwai. J.) Present : Mr. Alok Bakshi, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari and Mr. T.R. Dahire, counsel forthe respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 02.09.2011) 1. This is defendants' appeai under Section 96 of the Code of Civll Procedure (for short 'the Code') chatlenging the judgment and decree dated 27.7.2010 passed by District Judge Raigarh in Civil Suit No.S-B/2008 whereby a decree has been passed to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit tiil its actual payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that: On 29.6.2007 at about 7 a.m. when Anupam Kumar Sao (since deceased) i.e. son of the respondent herein was going from village Bhatanpali to College and ^iis work place, near vllSage Jhalmala he came in contact with tive electric wire and due to electrocution he died on the spot. 3. Respondent i.e. mother of deceased Anupam Kumar Sao has filed the suit claiming compensation against the appellants herein to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of deceased Anupam Kumar Sao. 4. The court below framed issues. In support of her case the respondent examined herseif and one Jhasketan Dehri (PW-2) whereas defendants examined one Mukesh Kumar Sahu, Assistant Engineer (DW-1). 5. The Searned triai Court decreed plaintiffs suit and awarded Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of suit tilt its actual payment against the appeliants; finding ^.'%: ^ "^^.., <; inter alia; the appellants are responsible for the above accident. Hence this appeai. 6. Shri Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: deceased Anupam Kumar Sao, was a student of B,A. llnd year and was not earning member of the family and therefore, the learned tria! Court has fallen in error in awarding amount of compensation by assessing income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. 7. On the other hand, Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari and Shri T.R. Dahire iearned counse! appearing for the respondent would submit : the respondent, widow mother of the deceased.was wholly dependant on him and meager sum of Rs.1 ,25,000/- has been awarded by the trial Court for the death of respondent's bread earner and, therefore, the amount awarded by the trial Court does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard counse! for the parties and perused the material availabie on record including impugned judgment and decree. 9. Indisputably, the live electric wire fell over the head of deceased Anupam Kumar Saoand he died on account ofelectrocutlon. 10. The responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality is statutorily conferred on the Electricity Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of eiectricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the Board had the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that thewire snapped would not remain llve on the road as users of such road would be under peri!. 11. it is the lookout of the appellanVBoard to install necessary devices, so, in case, any live wire got sna.pped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. The authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. The Board is also liable under the strict liabiiity rule. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. ^iy--. <'^ ^NN^ 12. Therefore, so far as liability fastened upon the appeilants/C.S.E.B. is concerned, the trial Court has rightly fastened the llabiiity upon the appellants to pay compensation to the respondent. 13. As per evidence of the witnesses, it is ciear that deceased was working in M/s Ajay Auto Electrical, Raigarh and was getting Rs.2,000/- per month. 14. The deceased was young boy of 22 years at the time of accident, was earning Rs.2,000/- per month and respondenVwidow mother of deceased was wholly dependant on him. 15. The compensation of Rs.1 ,25.000/- awarded by the trial Court to the respondent when examined in the context of above brought features of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court is not excessive and is just and proper compensation in the -facts and circumstances of the case. 16. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not find any scope of interference in the judgment and decree. The appeal being devoid of merit is iiable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 17. Decree be drawn accordingly. 01- Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge