1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2007. 1. UTTAM UNDRAJI LONDHE & OTHERS... .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. PRESIDNET MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. .. RESPONDENT/S ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri C. A. Joshi Adv for appellants. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 25 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Darwha whereby he dismissed the suit instituted by the present appellants. The wife of appellant No.1 and mother of 2 appellants 2 to 5 had taken goats for grazing. Some of the goats entered into the field of defendants 3 and 4. While the deceased Anjanabai was driving away the goats she came in contact with a live electric wire near the electric motor pump in the field of defendants 3 and 4. She as a result thereof suffered electric shock and died. The appellants therefore instituted a suit against defendants 3 and 4 who are the owners of the field and in whose field the electric connection was supplied by defendants 1 and 2. They claim damages of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The plaintiffs/appellants had contended that it is due to the negligence on the part of the electricity board that deceased suffered electric shock and therefore defendants 1 and 2 were liable to pay damages. Suit was resisted by the defendants. The learned judge of the trial Court found that deceased had not died due to the negligence on the part of the defendants 1 and 2 and plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any damages. Learned Judge of the trial Court 3 dismissed the suit because no damages were claimed as against defendants 3 and 4 and they were claimed against defendants 1 and 2. After having gone through the judgment of the learned Judge of the trial Court it is apparent that it was the duty of the defendants 3 and 4 to maintain and keep the pipe line of the electric motor pump and supply of electricity in proper condition. It appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the electric wires were damaged and that is why there was a leakage and deceased came into contact with live wire. It is therefore apparent from the judgment of the trial Court that if at all there is any fault, it lies with defendants 3 and 4. Unfortunately the plaintiff had not claimed any damages as against defendants 3 and 4. Since no fault was found with defendants 1 and 2the learned Judge was certainly right in dismissing the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show me how the liability could be fastened on defendants 1 and 2. It is the responsibility of the consumer to keep the electric connection in proper 4 condition. In view of this I do not find any substance in the appeal. The same is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. JUDGE svk