R.S.A.No. 1452-53 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 28.3.2011 R.S.A.No. 1452 of 2011(O&M) Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board and others ......Appellants Versus Kumar Bhatia and another .......Respondents R.S.A.No. 1453 of 2011(O&M) Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board and others ......Appellants Versus Kumar Bhatia and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Vide this judgment, RSA Nos. 1452 and 1453 of 2011 will be disposed of as these have arisen out of the same suit. R.S.A.No. 1452-53 of 2011(O&M) 2 Plaintiff had filed a suit for damages on account of permanent disability suffered by him. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was playing on the roof of his house with a kite. Suddenly the kite broke and fell on the roof of the house of one Inder Lal. Plaintiff went to the roof of that house and was about to pick up the kite when the thread of the kite got entangled with 11000 volts transmission line. The plaintiff suffered a heavy electric shock and was thrown on the roof of the house of Inder Lal. Plaintiff was rushed to the hospital from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The left arm and right leg of the plaintiff got burnt due to the electric shock suffered by him. Huge amount was spent on the treatment of the plaintiff. Defendants in their written statement averred that the plaintiff had suffered the electric shock due to his own negligence. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of ` 15 lacs with interest as damages? OPP. 2. .Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi nor has any cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPD 5. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ` 4,00,000/- as damages from the defendants vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and R.S.A.No. 1452-53 of 2011(O&M) 3 decree the plaintiff filed an appeal and the defendants preferred cross appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.2010, the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and enhanced the amount of damages from ` 4,00,000/- to ` 6,48,000/-. Hence, the present appeals by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeals are devoid of any merit and deserve dismissal. The plaintiff was a young child aged about 10 years at the time of alleged incident. Plaintiff suffered the electric shock while he was trying to pick up the kite from the roof of the house of Inder Lal. A Daily Diary Report was recorded in this regard. As per the medical evidence on record, plaintiff had suffered 100% disability. The defendants are dealing with transmission of electricity. It was required for the defendants to atleast lay the transmission lines at such a height so that these would not endanger human life. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff had suffered the electric shock due to the negligence on the part of the defendants. Apparently, the electric lines had been laid in such a manner that these touched the young boy aged 10 years when he went on the roof of the house of Inder Lal. Since the plaintiff has suffered 100% disability and was just 10 years old at the time of the alleged incident, the amount of damages awarded by the learned first Appellate Court cannot be said to be on the higher side. No substantial question of law arises in these regular R.S.A.No. 1452-53 of 2011(O&M) 4 second appeals, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 28, 2011 anita