R.S.A. No. 3342 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3342 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.8.2010 ... Dhan Singh ................Appellant vs. Kitabo Devi and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant ... K.C. Puri, J. This is an appeal directed by defendant against the judgment dated 23.8.2007 passed by Sh. Manjit Singh, Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant- appellant against the judgment dated 3.12.2005 passed by Sh. A.K. Sharma, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, was dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Smt. Kitabo Devi and others filed a suit for recovery claiming compensation from the defendants with the allegation that Dhan Singh has got installed an electricity operated tubewell in Khasra No. 159 and has planted Guava and Beri trees and around the plantation he had illegally encircled naked electric wires. At night he used to connect the naked R.S.A. No. 3342 of 2009 -2- electric wires with the electric connection of his tubewell. The deceased Nafe Singh, on 27.7.1994 at about 9.00 P.M. had gone to his fields which are situated in the South side of the land of defendant. Nafe Singh was electrocuted on account of negligence of defendant No.1 Dhan Singh who left the live electric wire. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are sons of defendant No.1 and defendants No. 4 to 7 are the officials of HSEB who have also contributed towards this negligence. So, compensation has been sought on account of death of Nafe Singh due to electrocution. Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that suit is not maintainable, the plaintiffs have no locus standi, the suit is based upon conjectures and surmises, plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and have no cause of action. On merits, they have admitted that land of deceased Nafe Singh is situated on the South side but there is a wide path between the two lands. They denied that the deceased had any tubewell in khasra No. 159. However, they admitted that defendants had got installed a tubewell and planted trees of Guava and Beri and around the plantations, there were thick bushes and barbed wire. However, it is denied that occurrence has taken place due to negligence of defendants. Defendants No. 4 to 7 have filed separate written statement taking preliminary objections as taken by defendants No. 1 to 3 in their written statement. On merits, they denied the incident for want of knowledge as well as release of electric current by the defendants around their plantation of Guava and Beri trees. They have further R.S.A. No. 3342 of 2009 -3- alleged that they are not responsible for the incident causing the death of Nafe Singh. Replication was filed denying the contents of written statements and reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of damages on account of untimely and premature death of deceased Nafe Singh alongwith future and pendente-lite interest @ 18% p.a. from the defendants? OPP 2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1994 passed in civil suit No. 1133/94 by the Court of Darshan Singh the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Karnal is illegal, null, void and not binding upon the interests of the plaintiffs in getting the amount of compensation recovered by the attachment and sale of the land detailed in para No. 3 of the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD 6. Whether plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD 7. Relief. Plaintiffs examined PW-1 Krishan, PW-2 Sarupa, PW-3 Kitabo Devi and closed the evidence. Defendants No. 1 to 3 R.S.A. No. 3342 of 2009 -4- examined DW-1 Dhan Singh, DW-2 Inderjeet. Remaining defendants examined DW-3P.R. Kapoor, SDO, Sub Division Gharaunda. Learned trial Court has returned the finding on issue No.1 partly in favour of the plaintiffs and held that claimants are entitled to claim Rs. 1 lac alongwith simple interest @ 6%. Issue No.2 was decided against the plaintiffs. Issues No. 3 to 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 1 lac alongwith interest @ 6% was decreed. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 3.12.2005 passed by Sh.A.K. Sharma, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, defendant – Dhan Singh preferred the Ist appeal, which was heard by Sh. Manjit Singh, Additional District Judge, Karnal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.8.2007. Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgments dated 23.8.2007 and 3.12.2005, referred to above, the present regular second appeal has been filed. The appellant in paragraph No. 9 of the grounds of appeal has mentioned that following substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal:- i) Whether the exhibits which are not proved can be made basis of the judgments and decrees? ii)Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the Ld. Courts below are based on surmises and conjectures? iii)Whether the documents on the basis of which the appellant is acquitted can be made base for damages in a civil suit? Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Dhan R.S.A. No. 3342 of 2009 -5- Singh has been acquitted in the criminal case. The Courts below have based its judgment on un-exhibited documents. Mark –B site plan has not been proved. The other documents, even not proved, have been relied upon. The plaintiffs have based their claim on the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C./FIR against the appellant. The appellant has been acquitted in the criminal case and as such there is no evidence on the file to arrive at the conclusion that it is on account of his negligence, Nafe Singh has died. So, it is submitted that both the Courts below have committed illegality in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of amount in question. I have carefully considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. The main controversy in the present lis is whether Nafe Singh had died due to negligence of appellant. Both the Courts below, after appreciating and re-appreciating the evidence, respectively, gave concurrent finding of fact that it is on account of the negligence on the part of the appellant that Nafe Singh was electrocuted. That being a finding of fact, does not call for any interference. Mere fact that appellant has been acquitted in a criminal case, is of no consequence. The judgment of the criminal Court is not binding on the Civil Court and this view is supported by recent authority of Apex Court, reported as Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and another vs. State (Delhi Admn.) and another 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 520. The argument advanced by counsel for the appellant to the effect that inadmissible documents have been taken into account, is R.S.A. No. 3342 of 2009 -6- not substantiated on the file. Both the Courts below have independently assessed the evidence on the file and reached to the conclusion mentioned above. So, I have no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 10.8.2010 Judge chugh