IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.46 of 2003 Judgment reserved on: 21.4.2009 Date of decision: 28.4.2008. H.P.S.E.B. and another …….Appellants Vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellants : Mr. Baldev Singh,Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate for respondent No.6. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The appellants are in appeal against judgment, decree dated 8.11.2002, passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Suit No.6 of 2000, decreeing the suit of respondents No.1 to 5 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till 8.11.2002 and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of payment with costs. The respondent No.1 was held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- and respondents No.2 to 5, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… Rs.25,000/- each alongwith proportionate interest. The respondent No.1 shall deposit Rs.50,000/- in some nationalized Bank for a period of 5 years and the share of minor respondent No.4 Daya Nand shall remain deposit in some nationalized Bank till his minority. The liability of respondent No.6 was held limited to Rs.2,00,000/- 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 to 5 being the widow, daughter, sons and mother of deceased Ram Sarup had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,98,000/- on account of death of Ram Sarup due to electrocution on 26.6.1999. The pleaded case of respondents No.1 to 5 is that L.T. Line of appellants was passing through the fields of respondents No.1 to 5 for supplying electricity to the residents of village. On 26.6.1999, L.T. Line fell in the fields of Ram Sarup, who died on the spot due to electrocution. The accident took place due to the negligence of the staff of appellants and for that reason the appellants are liable to pay compensation to the respondents No.1 to 5. The deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. 3. The suit was contested by appellants, they denied the liability of their staff and their liability to pay any compensation. It was pleaded that on 26.6.1999 due to heavy rains and storm eucalyptus tree fell on singe phase L.T. Line resulting snapping of line which fell down. It was denied that Ram Sarup had died due to electrocution. The accident was an act of God and therefore, appellants are not liable to pay any compensation. The respondents No.1 to 5 have no locus standi to file the suit. The objections of maintainability, non joinder and mis-joinder of parties were also taken. …3… 4. The respondent No.6 has pleaded that its liability, if any, is to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- only. The Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The respondents No.1 to 5 have no cause of action to file the suit. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.4,98,000/- as damages on account of death of Sh. Ram Sarup deceased due to the felling of the LT Electricity Line as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the death of deceased Ram Sarup has occurred due to the negligent act of the subordinate of defendants No.1 and 2 as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the liability of the respondent No.3 is limited upto 2 lacs only as alleged? OPD-3 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as alleged? OPD-3 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendants as alleged? OPD 1 to 3. 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD-3 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPD 1 & 2. 8. Relief. The issues No.2 to 7 were decided in favour of the respondents No.1 to 5, and under issue No.1, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as per operative part of the judgment. 6. I have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. Sanjeev Sood, vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate learned counsel for respondent No.6 and …4… have also gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that liability to pay interest at the most should be from 28.8.1999, on which date the suit was filed. The interest is payable by the Insurance Company. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 has submitted that respondents No.1 to 5 have accepted the impugned judgment, decree, therefore, he supports the impugned judgment, decree which were passed by learned District Judge after due appreciation of material on record. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 has submitted that as per Policy Ex.D-1 the maximum liability of the Insurance Company is to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly directed the appellants to pay decretal amount over and above Rs.2,00,000/-. 7. The impugned judgment, decree have been accepted by respondents in as much as they have not filed any appeal or cross-objections against impugned judgment, decree. The perusal of the grounds of appeal would show that except for raising grievance against interest, the appellants have not raised any other point in the grounds of appeal. The grievance of the appellants with respect to interest is in two parts (i), at the most interest is payable from 28.8.1999 on which date the suit was filed (ii), the liability to pay interest is also of the Insurance Company as per Policy. So far point number one is concerned, the learned District Judge has awarded interest from the date of filing of the suit and not any prior date. Insofar point number two is concerned, the Policy Ex.D-1 provides indemnity limit Rs.2,00,000/- for anyone accident and Rs.8,00,000/- …5… in anyone year. There is no clause in Policy that in no case interest would be payable under the Policy. The interest is not part of the amount which was agreed to be paid by respondent No.6 in case of accident in Policy Ex.D-1. The interest is payable by Insurance Company for not paying the amount when it fell due. The amount fell due on the date of the accident. The Insurance Company has led no evidence. The respondent No.6 has given no explanation why the claim of the respondents No.1 to 5 even upto to the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was not settled within reasonable time from the date of accident. In these circumstances, for not settling the claim of respondents No.1 to 5, the respondent No.6 is liable to pay interest. The learned District Judge has allowed interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till 8.11.2002 and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum. In the facts and circumstances of the case which have come on record, the respondent No.6 is also liable to pay interest to respondents No.1 to 5 in addition to Rs.2,00,000/- as decreed by learned District Judge. The learned District Judge has misconstrued Policy Ex.D-1 with respect to payment of interest by respondent No.6. The cap of Rs.2,00,000/- would not apply to the payment of interest when it has not been explained by Insurance Company why Rs.2,00,000/- were not paid by appellants to respondents No.1 to 5 on due date. 8. No other point was urged. 9. The result of the above discussion, appeal is partly allowed, judgment, decree dated 8.11.2002 passed by learned District Judge In Civil Suit No.6 of 2000 is partly modified. The …6… respondent No.6 shall also pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.2,00,000/- to respondents No.1 to 5 on their shares as held by learned District Judge from the date of filing of the suit till 8.11.2002 and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till payment along with costs of this appeal. The rest of the impugned judgment, decree is upheld and with these directions, the appeal is disposed of. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge April 28, 2009 (sks) .