IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH A, /‘ F\{ k1!!! _ A ‘y Aged about 15 years ; kNeelabati S/o- Sukari, /; ‘ : Aged about 1‘3 years, y KMou' S/o- s‘ukan‘, : M<uma1i Santa D/o-Sukari Q‘ ?w $ FIRS g @g’ First Appeal No. 11 972004 Chairman Gudyari, Chhamég§h aipur State Electn'city Board, C G Executlve Engmeer(0& M) Chhatttsgarh State Electrlc1ty Board Jagdalpur Dlstt Bastal CG Hivision Bennh Appellants/Defendants VERSUS I K Sukara S/o- Lakhmu i a Aged about 35 years kAgun S/o— Sukan Aged about 11 years, Aged about 9 years 62" wrwud—cé by AllofCaste-Durva W g a %t I[a4- w .2to g W wwttata ah £KKMMREW L ' AH reSIdent; of Vlllage— Chmdabada ‘ Thana— Darbha Dlstt Bastar CG [‘ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE Respondents/PlamuEs N ‘j @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \ ‘ \ \ ‘ APPELLANTS Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Eleqtricity Défendams Board and another. ‘ ‘ 1 Vetsus 1 RESPONDENDS Sukara. Slo Lakhmu and others PVfintms F irst Appeal No. 127 of 2004 i ‘ HRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon’ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal: J.) Pr£esent : Mr. B.P. Gupta, counselforthe appeuants. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, counsel for the respondents. ‘ ORAL ORDER ‘(Passed on 25.07.201 1) 1. The instant first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure ,(for short ‘the Code’) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31 .12.2003 passed by 15* Additional District Judge, Bastar in Civil Suit No. 6-B/2002 whereby a decree has been passed toithe tune cf Rs.1 ,02,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 2.i Brief facts of the case are that : On 21 4.2002 in the afternoon Stnt. Chandrabati, Kumari Somari and one Kumari Neelabati while collecting leaves, came in the contact with live electric wire and due to} electrocution Smti Chandrabati and Kumari Somari died on the spot itself. 3.1: The matter was reported to the police station Darbha and post mortem of the dead body of Smt Chandrabati and Kumari Somari was conducted i 4.1 The husband and four children of deceased Smt Chandrabati 7 have filed the suit claiming compensation against the appellants herein to the tune of Rs1 7O OODI- for the death of Smt Chandrabati V‘s 5.; The suit was contested by the appellants by filing wntten statement in which it was not disputed that Smt Chandrabati died due to electrocution. However, it was alleged that the appellants are not guilty of negligence and the amount daimed is shockingly on higher side. 6. The court beiow framed issues, recorded evidénce and d creed the suit holding appeHantiBoard negligent in maintaining ora electric line and decreed the suit awardin a sum of Rs. 12.00— alon ith interest @ 9 percent per annum. Hence this apeai 7 Shri G learned ounsel appeag for the peants would su the as no negence on t part f the peant/Board mtg overhead elect , the aount wde y he he apellant year come R00l- onl and decreetal amount es wt d . B P upta c rin apll bmit re w lig he o apll In ainainin ric lme m aard is shockingl on higr side ignoring the fact that t ps ly In Is s60 y derves to be sably reduce 8. A On the other hand, Shri Prafull . Bharat, learned ounsel pp d bm T ‘ aearing for the respondents woul suit : the leamed ribunal, in at, has awrde meaer sum o Rs.1 ,02,000/- ignoring the income the deceased .e. Rs.50/- per day pladd by the appellant and l e ce 53 he atie tria 9. l have ard counsel for the prs and perused the mael aable o record clug pugne dgment and decre 1 ‘ The resnsibili t supply electric ergy‘in the paricular loality is statutorly conferred on the lectricity Board. lf the energy s transmitted causes injury or death of a huma being, who gs unk l uf c l h iy ae din he k e p ne ad t n a rs s od 11 lt is the okout te appellt/Board to install necessary deics, so, in cse,»an live wire got snappe and el on the public fc ad g f off i ee s th amount of compensation needs no.interferen. wt 0. poty o en t c i E o n et nowingly trapped into it the primary iability to compensate the sferer is that of the supplier of the eletric energy. So long as the votage of electricity transmitted throug the wires is potentall of dngrous mensio t~Board had the added duty to tae all safety masures to revent escape of such ergy or to see that the wire snppe would no remai live on the road s use of uch road wul be under peril. 1 lo of h an ve ay d fl vehed g ,00/ g w g N c vail n Indin Imd Ju e roEad the electric current thereon shouid automatically have been diisrupted. The authorities manning such dangerous commodities ha‘ve extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. The Bo‘ard is also liable under the strict liability rule. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. 12. ln the instant case, the appellant/Board has utterly failed to discharge its statutorily obligation, it cannot claim exoneration from paying damages in case.of a death arising out of the accident by féiii‘né or live electric wire on the road. i3 L From perusal of the record and also the evidence adduced by the parties, inthe considered opinion of this court, the court below, atter appreciating the entire evidence in its proper perspective, has rightly passed the award in respondent’s favour holding the a‘ pellant/Board guilty of negligence. 14 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 liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. /i/A ‘ (v/r/ 15. Decree be drawn accordingly. / " SN‘ § i N K. Agawa‘ i 33‘” s /