IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 220 of 1999 with Cross Objection No. 378 of 1999. Reserved on : 7.4.2009. Decided on: _ 21. 4.2009. __________________________________________________ RSA No. 220 of 1999: H.P. State Electricity Board and others … Appellants. Versus Shri Chet Ram … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Cross Objection No. 378 of 1999: H.P. State Electricity Board and others … Appellants/ Non-Objectors. Versus Shri Chet Ram … Respondent/ Cross-objector. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants and : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, Non-Objector. vice Mr. S.S. Mittal, Advocate. For the Respondent and : Mr. Gulzar Rathour, Advocate. Cross Objector. ___________________________________________________________ 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Rajiv Sharma, Judge. RSA No. 220 of 1999: This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 9-S/13 of 1997 dated 18.2.1999. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1 lac as damages. The allegations contained in the plaint are that he was a resident of village Dimon of Tehsil Chopal. On 28.4.1990, he was going to his fields and was also taking his oxen. He came in contact with the live stay wire of electric pole. He suffered electric shock due to stay wire. He was rescued by the villagers. He was moved to the hospital at Chopal. He had claimed compensation for personal injuries caused to him. The suit was contested by the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for convenience sake). The trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lac as general and special damages. The defendants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Shimla. The learned District Judge, Shimla modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent that in place of decree for a sum of Rs. 1 lac, a decree for a sum of Rs. 43,800/- was passed in favour of the plaintiff. This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the principle of res ipsa locquitur applies in a case of electrocution by stay wire which is properly insulated by means of an egg insulator installed at the pole at a hight of 15/16 feet? 3 2. Whether it is reasonable to apply principles of damages under the Motor Vehicles Act in case of electrocution by stay wire and it would not be more appropriate to adopt principles/provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act in such cases? Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate has strenuously argued that both the learned courts below have erred in law by awarding the damages to the plaintiff. He also argued that the principles for awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act could not be relied upon by the learned courts below for awarding damages to the plaintiff. Mr. Gulzar Rathour, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. Both the substantial questions of law are being taken up together for adjudication to avoid repetition and for convenience. The defendants have not denied the current flowing through the stay wire which caused the electric shock. Their plea was that the stay wire was situated at a distance of more than six feet from the path and as such the plaintiff could not have come into contact with the wire. According to Mr. Baldev Singh, it was a case of contributory negligence. The plaintiff has deposed that when he was passing close to stay wire, he suffered shock and fell on the side and became unconscious. His deposition was supported by the PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. The matter was also reported to the police. DW-1 and DW-2 have stated that the 4 electric pole was erected on the middle of the path which was supported by a stay wire. They also stated that an egg insulator was installed in the stay wire at the height of 15/16 feet. In their cross-examination, DW-1 has admitted that in case the electric pole is wet during rainy reason, then there is possibility of passing electric current. In these circumstances, even though the egg insulator was installed, however, due to rain the possibility of passing of electric current to the earth could not be ruled out. It has also not come in the evidence of the defendants that insulator was properly installed. The person who has installed egg insulator has not been examined. The plaintiff has suffered fifteen per cent permanent disability/loss of functions in relations to right and upper lower limbs as certified vide certificate Ext. PW-6/A. Mr. Gulzar Rathour has argued while supporting his cross-objections that the plaintiff used to work as mason. The total holdings of his father were 14-13 bighas. The monthly income of the plaintiff has been assessed by the learned District Judge Rs. 1500/-. His age at the time of accident was 26 years. The learned District Judge has applied the multiplier of sixteen years at the age of 26. He has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the treatment. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded on account of pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life. He was held entitled to total sum of Rs. 43,800/- by the First Appellate Court. The Courts can rely upon the principles applicable in Motor Accidents Claims cases for awarding just compensation in case of accidental deaths as well. What has to be seen by the Court of law is that a person is to be awarded just and fair compensation for the injuries he has 5 suffered. The multiplier method adopted by the Courts below for awarding compensation in the Motor Accidents Claims cases has stood the test of time. It is based on strong reasoning. Accordingly, there is no merit in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. Cross-Objection No. 378 of 1999: Mr. Gulzar Rathour has strenuously argued that the plaintiff has though suffered fifteen per cent disability but taking into consideration that he was working as mason, it will amount to 100% disability. This submission on the basis of the evidence led by the plaintiff cannot be accepted. He was occasionally working as mason. He was primarily an agriculturist. The plaintiff has not led any evidence for how long he had been working as a mason. He has not cited any witness to state that he was working as regular mason. In these circumstances, the learned First Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and on the basis of fifteen per cent disability suffered by him has rightly been awarded a sum of Rs. 43,800/-. However, fact of the matter is that the plaintiff was bound to be awarded reasonable interest on the compensation amount. Accordingly, the cross-objections are allowed only to the extent that the plaintiff-cross objector is held entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on a sum of Rs. 43,800/- from the date of institution of the suit, i.e. 30.10.1996. Accordingly, the decree dated 18.2.1999 is modified to that extent. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. April 21, 2009. (cr) 6