IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 162 of 1998 Decided on: 7. 4.2009. __________________________________________________ H.P. State Electricity Board and another … Appellants. Versus Smt. Natho and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. S.S. Mittal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 21-N/13 of 1995 dated 20.2.1998. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for convenience sake) filed a suit in which decree of damages to the tune of Rs. 1,99,000/- was sought against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for convenience sake). The case of the plaintiffs was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 that on 31.8.1989 at 11.30 p.m. deceased Prithvi Singh died due to electrocution at village Nawada when he touched the broken electrical wire. There was negligence on the part of the defendants and its employees. The deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. The suit was resisted by the defendants. It was contended by the defendants that on the night of incident, heavy storms had blown which had uprooted the electric pole and trees and the electric wires were got detached. It was denied that there was any negligence on the part of the defendants or its subordinate staff. The accident was attributed to nature. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 26.12.1994. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur. He allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on 20.2.1998. The appeal was admitted on 1.7.1998. The attention of the Court was not drawn to the substantial questions of law framed at page 6 of the paper book. The appeal was heard on substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 framed at page 6 of the paper book. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur is not sustainable. He has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 3 The substantial questions of law are being taken up together for adjudication to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence and for convenience. The death of Prithvi Singh has not been disputed in the written statement. The case of the defendants is that the accident took place due to heavy storm which caused the breaking and falling of big branches of eucalyptus tree on the single phase L.T. line. This led to the snapping of electric wire resulting in tilting of another pole and loosening of sags in couple of spans including one passing over the “Kacha” road of the village. The deceased was coming back to his house. He came in contact with the broken wire and got electrocuted. DW-1 deposed that because of heavy storm on the fateful dark night the neutral wires got snapped from both the ends and that phase wire was also got snapped on one side. It was for the Board to take care of such a situation and to keep and maintain the fuse mechanism properly. DW-2 Balbir Singh has admitted that any body could get electric shock with the passing current because of the manner in which the live wire was over-hanging on the bushes. He also admitted that when the deceased was electrocuted, the fuse was not blown off. The matter was reported to the police at 7.15 a.m. The report shows that the deceased got electrocuted. A notice was also sent to the Board. It was not replied. PW-1 Babu Ram has stated that the matter was taken up with the Board but no action was taken. The statutory inquiry as contemplated under Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act was not instituted. The learned District 4 Judge has come to just conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the Board and its staff. It was the duty cast upon the Board to maintain the poles and wires properly. The deceased was earning Rs. 50/- per day. He was a young man of 28 years. The First Appellate Court has applied the multiplier of 12 on the income of Rs. 12000/- per annum. He has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- including funeral charges. The amount of compensation awarded by the First Appellate Court need not be interfered with. It is re-iterated that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the Board and it cannot be treated as an act of God. Accordingly, there is no merit in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. April 7, 2009. (cr)