1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. V/s. Sukhi Devi & Ors. (S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL No.208/2010) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure Date of Order :: May 07, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Shailesh Prakash sharma for the appellant. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 02.02.2010 passed by the District Judge Dholpur, whereby the learned Judge has decreed the plaintiff's suit filed under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act and has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,32,400/- to the claimants. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that on 01.07.2008 when an information was received that the electricity wires had broken, the appellant had disconnected the electric supply. Thus, there is no possibility that the deceased died due to electrocution. Moreover, in case electric flow had restarted, the same had not been done by the appellant, but was done by some other person. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held to be negligent for the fault of unknown person. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment. This case is covered by the doctrine of “res ipsa locutor”. According to the post-mortem report of Atar Singh, he had died due to electrocution. Since he had died due to electrocution, obviously the electric flow was there when he touched the live wire. Thus, the contention that the electric flow had been turn off is unacceptable. Even if unknown persons had turned the electricity flow on, the negligence of the appellant is writ large. For, an unauthorized person cannot turn the electric flow without the permission of the appellant-company. Even if it is claimed that employee of the appellant-company had turned the electric flow, still the appellant, as the master, would be liable for the acts of its servants. Hence, the second contention raised by the learned counsel is also unsustainable. Therefore, there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment dated 02.02.2010. This appeal devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-