:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO.956 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.956 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.956 OF 1991 WITH WITH WITH CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO.7956 OF 1992 CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO.7956 OF 1992 CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO.7956 OF 1992 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay 2. Sub-Station Officer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Sub-Station, Karad-415 110, District: Satara ...Appellants. v. (Org.Defts.) 1. Suman Sampat Garud 2. Suhas Sampat Garud 3. Vikas Sampat Garud ...Respondents. (Org.Plaintiffs) Ms.A.R.S.Baxi , adv. for the Appellants. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 8th September, 2008. DATE: 8th September, 2008. DATE: 8th September, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Original defendants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara in favour of the plaintiffs for compensation of Rs.1,02,960/- in Special Civil Suit No.351 of 1989. 2. Admitted facts are that the deceased Sampat, aged about 41 years, was the husband of the plaintiff no.1 Suman and the father of the plaintiff nos.2 and 3. He was in service of the defendant no.1 Maharashtra State Electricity Board (In brief ’M.S.E.B.’) as lineman. Simultaneously, he had also his own :2: agricultural land bearing block nos.613 and 610 of village Yenake in Taluka: Karad, District:Satara. On 26th March, 1989 due to cyclonic conditions, one live wire carrying high voltage electricity of the pole situated in Block No.613 was cut and had fallen in the said land. According to the plaintiffs/respondents on 27th March, 1989, the deceased Sampat had gone to his field for irrigation of the sugar-cane crop standing in his field. He had no knowledge that electricity wire was cut and had fallen on the ground. When he was irrigating his field, he came in contact with the water, near the pole. Current was passing through the live wire, which had come into contact with the water, therefore, he got severe shock. According to the plaintiffs, electric wire was not repaired within time nor electric supply was disconnected after the wire was cut due to cyclonic conditions. According to them, this was an act of negligence on the part of the defendants and due to this, Sampat had died, therefore, defendants are liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs and dependants, of the deceased Sampat. It is contended that as an employee of the M.S.E.B., he was earning Rs.1,592/- per month as salary and the plaintiffs used to receive Rs.1,000/- per month for household expenses. He had also agricultural land, which provided income of Rs.10,000/- per annum. According to them, had this incident not occurred, he would have survived up to the age of 65 years and thus, :3: they have suffered financial loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the defendants with interest thereon. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement Exhibit 16 and additional written statement, Exhibit 31. They denied that accident had taken place due to failure to maintain electric wires properly. According to them, wires were at the relevant place with guard loops. Periodical inspection of the wires was taken up to check faults, if any, and sufficient staff was appointed for that purpose. The phase wire adjacent to the neutral was cut due to the cyclonic conditions beyond the control of the defendants at about midnight between 26th and 27th March, 1989. It was contended that the wire, which was cut had become dead and there was no danger to the life from that wire. According to them, dead body of the deceased was found near the pole and at the end side of wire. It is contended that he must have climbed up the pole to repair the wire and possibly while making an attempt to repair the wire unauthorisedly, he came in contact with the live wire on the pole and got a shock. With these contentions, they contended that firstly, the deceased appears to have died because of his own negligence and secondly, wire was cut due to the cyclonic conditions, which is an act of God beyond the control of the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled :4: to get any compensation. On the point of compensation, it is contended that the deceased could continue in service only till the age of 58 years and not 65 years, even if he would have survived and that the claim made by the plaintiffs is exorbitant. 4. Several issues were framed at Exhibit 17. After hearing the evidence on behalf of the parties, the learned trial Court came to conclusion that the phase wire was cut because of the cyclonic conditions, but the defendants had failed to properly maintain them or to disconnect the electric supply. The trial Court also found that the deceased Sampat, who was lineman working with the M.S.E.B. must have been fully conversant with the consequences of coming into contact with the live wire because he was fully knowing about the electric current, low tension, high tension wires, etc. Taking into consideration this aspect, the trial Court held that the deceased had also contributed in this accident. Having come to conclusion that plaintiffs are deprived of earning of Rs.1,000/- per month, the trial Court came to conclusion that the deceased was aged about 41 years and he could continue in the service upto 58 years. So the loss of dependency for 17 years was taken and the total loss was calculated at Rs.2,04,000/-. Decree was passed only to the extent of Rs.1,02,000/-, being half of the amount, which the defendants would have been otherwise liable to pay. The trial Court directed the :5: defendants to pay interest on the amount of the loss of dependency from the date of death till the date of filing the suit. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants have preferred the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the defendnats/appellants. None appeared for the respondents at the time of hearing of the appeal. Perused the impugned judgment and record. 7. Following points arise for my consideration for the reasons given below: i. Whether the defendants were negligent in proper maintenance of high tension electric wires ? Yes. ii. Whether Sampat died by coming in contact with the electric wire cut during the cyclone ? Yes. iii.Whether there is any justification to interfere in the compensation awarded by the trial Court ? No. 8. Record reveals that on behalf of the plaintiffs, five witnesses were examined while on behalf of the defendants, three witnesses were examined. Admittedly, incident took place in the field of the deceased Sampat himself. At that time, sugar-cane crop was standing in :6: the field. It’s height was just 2 fts. and according to the plaintiff no.1 Suman, her husband had gone to the field for irrigating the crop. As per the spot panchanama, dead body was found at the distance of about 4 ft. from the pole and electric wire was hanging near the left arm and left leg of the deceased. He had suffered burn injuries on the body. Admittedly, there was no eye witness of the said incident. It is also admitted fact that the deceased was in the employment of the defendant M.S.E.B. as lineman and as observed by the trial Court, he was expected to know electric current, low tension, high tension wires, etc. Admittedly, because of the cyclonic conditions during the previous night, electric wire carrying high voltage was cut and was hanging. 9. It is the plea of the defendants that the deceased Sampat must have climbed the pole unauthorisedly to repair the wires without taking due precaution and he must have come in contact with the live wire and might have died. This plea is based only on imagination and surmises. There is no material to support it. The circumstances are against this plea. As Sampat was lineman and was acquainted with the electric current, low and high tension wires and as he was aware that the high tension wires were passing through his field by the pole standing there, it was impossible for him to climb the pole to get the cut wire :7: repaired without taking precaution. If he was really interested in getting the wire repaired earlier, he would have immediately contacted supply office of M.S.E.B. to see that electric supply was disconnected before any attempt was made to repair the same. The trial Court rightly noted that as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, he had suffered only burn injuries because of electric shock. No other internal or external injury was found on his body. The trial Court noted that if he would have climbed the pole and had touched the live wire and fallen on the ground because of shock, from the height of 25 ft. he must have suffered some internal or external causing injuries on the body besides burn injuries. This is sound reason given by the trial Court. If a person falls from the height of 25 ft, it is impossible to believe that he would not suffer any injury not even scratch on the body. He had suffered burn injuries, which could be attributed only to electrocution. Therefore, in the given circumstances, it is impossible to accept the plea of the defendants that Sampat climbed the pole for any unauthorised purpose and had fallen after coming in contact with the live wire. In the given circumstances, there is every possibility that while he was working in the field, he must have come in contact with the live wire hanging near the pole. 10. It is true that wire was cut because of cyclonic :8: conditions during the previous night but the officers and the staff of the defendants were expected to take immediate precaution and to check the electric wires. They could anticipate that because of the cyclonic conditions, some damage might have been caused to the live wires. Therefore, they were expected to immediately cut the electric supply and then to check up the wires. As per the defence, wire must have been cut at about midnight and this incident occurred at about 3.00 p.m. on the next date. It means time of about 14-15 hours had lapsed after the cyclonic conditions till this incident. But till Sampat died, no attempts were made to disconnect the supply. In view of this, I find that the trial Court was justified in holding that there was negligence on the part of the defendants in proper maintenance of the wires. Therefore, defendants are bound to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. 11. The trial Court held that Sampat was liable for contributing negligence in his death. According to the trial Court, deceased had knowledge about electricity, electric current, high tension and low tension wires and he ought not to have come in contact with live wire and he should have been more careful. The trial Court held deceased Sampat equally responsible and awarded only 50% of the total compensation, which would have been otherwise payable. As there is no appeal against that finding on behalf of the plaintiffs, it will not be :9: proper for this Court to comment on that aspect of the matter. 12. The trial Court noted that the loss of dependency for the plaintiffs was Rs.1,000/- per month, taking into consideration salary of the deceased at that time. He was aged about 41 years and had to serve for 17 years more, the trial Court calculated the loss of dependency for complete 17 years at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and then reduced it to 50% in view of the contributory negligence of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the multiplier of 17 was not proper. There is substance in the submission. Taking into consideration his age and remaining period of service, the appropriate multiplier, would be 11 or 12 and the loss of dependency should have been calculated accordingly. However, in that case, the plaintiffs would also be entitled to get interest on the compensation amount . However, the loss of dependency could not remain static at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for all the 17 years. There could be prospect of increase in his salary and in his contribution to family. Even if this aspect is not taken into consideration and if the multiplier of 12 is applied, I find that the total compensation payable by the defendants to the respondents after deduction on account of attributory reasons could be around Rs.72,000/-. Accident had taken place on 27-3-1989 and the suit was :10: filed on 22nd December, 1989. It appears that the compensation amount was actually deposited on 1-11-1991, i.e., almost 2 years after filing of the suit. If the interest is calculated at 18% as granted by the trial Court from date of suit, total amount including interest would be Rs.1,00,800/-. The trial Court has granted an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- besides an amount of Rs.960/- towards the interest on the loss of dependency from the date of accident till the date of filing the suit. Difference will be hardly of about Rs.2,000/-. In such circumstances, I do not see any valid reason to interfere in the total compensation awarded by the trial Court. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, appeal stands dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)