IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.12.2009 1] Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another … Appellants Versus Sant Singh and another …Respondents RSA No.4693 of 2009 (O&M) 2] Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another … Appellants Versus Sant Singh and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellants. Sabina, J. Vide this judgment, the above mentioned two appeals i.e. RSA No.4692 of 2009 tilted Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another Vs. Sant Singh and another and RSA No.4692 of 2009 titled as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another Vs. Sant Singh and another would be disposed of as they have arisen out of one suit. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for damages and for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of Rajinder Singh and Rs.30,000/- in lieu of death of two buffalos). The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2007 for recovery of Rs.1 lac as damages along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and Rs.29,000/- on account of death of two buffalos. The plaintiffs as well as defendant-appellant filed separate appeals against the said RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M) judgment and decree. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed vide separate judgment and decree dated 25.8.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, Fast Tract Court. The damages were enhanced from Rs.1 lac to Rs.2 lac by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. Hence, the present appeals by defendants No.3 and 4 The facts of the case as noticed by the trial Court in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are that the plaintiffs are parents of Rajinder Singh who along with his two buffalos died on 6.7.2000 due to electric shock/ electric current. The brief facts are that on 6.7.2000 at about 3 PM Rajinder Singh left his house along with buffalos to his fields. When the buffalos reached near the Railway Crossing of Damanheri two buffalos were inside the water pond (Chappar) and started drinking water. Both these buffalos fell down in the Chappar after shivering. Rajinder Singh presumed that buffalos might have some problem he just to save the buffalos also went inside the Chappar, he received electric shock from the hanging telephone wires, which were hanging after touching electric wire through which electric current passed and the same passed into telephone wires, one of the corner of which were lying in the pond/Chappar. Rajinder Singh died their buffalos also died there. Sardar Singh, Bant Singh and plaintiff no.1 reached immediately at the spot and removed buffalos and Rajinder Singh from the Chappar. It is further averred that Rajinder Singh and his buffalos died due to the negligence of technical staff of defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 and due to improper maintenance of electric wires and telephone wires meant for supply electricity and telephone service, moreover there was no regular checking and maintenance 2 RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M) by the staff of defendants as required under the Indian Electricity Rules and Telephone Rules near the place of present accident. It is further averred that at the time of death Rajinder Singh was aged about 27 years and was unmarried, he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. from the business of Diary farming and agricultural business. The plaintiff being parents of Rajinder Singh were dependent upon his income. Plaintiffs also suffered loss of Rs.30,000/- due to the death of two buffalos, the price has been assessed by senior veterinary officer who conducted post mortem examination of buffalos. It is further averred that the plaintiffs made representation to the defendants through their Advocate S.Subeg Singh Sandhu but the defendants made one or the other excuse and has not paid any compensation to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also lodged report with the police of P.S. City Rajpura. The police after making investigation has registered case U/S 304-A, 428 IPC against the concerned officer of defendants . Hence, the present suit. 3. Upon notice defendants No.1 & 2/PSEB put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement in which denied all the averments of the plaint besides taking preliminary objections that the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred; the suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties; the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the answering defendants to file the present suit and the plaintiffs have not complied with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. On merits, all the averments of the plaint were specifically denied. It was denied that DDR was lodged by Shri Sant Singh son of Tarlok Singh on 6.7.2000 in which he had alleged that incident had took place due to the negligence of the telephone department and the electricity department. The allegations of the DDR were totally denied. It was further submitted that the correct facts of this case are that the telephone lines had broken from one end and had fallen 3 RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M) on the electricity wires of the Board. The other end of telephone lines had fallen in the Pond (Chappar). No electricity line of the Board had broken. The Electricity Board has only to right and authority to maintain the electricity lines and not the telephonic lines of the Union of India. The telephonic department/Union of India are responsible for maintaining their telephonic lines. In any case if any telephonic lines had fallen on the electricity lines as has taken place in the present case, then the entire liability is of telephone department and not of P.S.EB. It was further denied if deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- at the time of his death and further submitted that in fact said Rajinder Singh was un-employed and was not doing any work at that time and he was depended upon his parents and other family members. He was not doing agricultural work or diary farm business and lastly it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs. 4. Upon notice, counsel put in appearance on behalf of defendants No.3 and 4 (BSNL) and filed a separate written statement in which took preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable in the present form and that the plaintiff have not come to the court with clean hands. On merits, all the averments of the plaint were specifically denied. It was further submitted that no FIR/DDR in respect of the alleged incident was ever lodged by the plaintiff not any intimation/notice was ever sent to the defendants No.3 and 4 nor any complaint regarding the alleged incident was ever lodged. It was further submitted that the wire of the BSNL always on the right hand side of the Board and the wire of the Elecy. Board are always on the left hand side of the road, but the same are never in any case lying over and above on each side of the road, but in the rarest of rarest case, when in case of any emergency, when the wires crosses each other at a crossing (Chauraha) then the wires of the BSNL are 4 RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M) always at a lower position i.e. at a height of 8 feet and the wires of the PSEB at a height of 12 feet and more then it and the wires of the BSNL always remain below the wires of the PSEB. It was further submitted that neither Rajinder Singh, nor his buffalos died due to the fault on the part of the defendants No.3 and 4 and neither the persons mentioned as alleged witnesses, were never present at the place of alleged occurrence. It was further submitted that the matter was never reported to the Panchayat, nor any resolution to this effect was passed by the Gram Panchayat, in the presence of the B.D.& P.O. nor the same was ever sent to the concerned Police Station and lastly it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs may kindly be dismissed with costs.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned lower Court:- 1. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, if so its effect? OPP 4. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeals are devoid of any merit and deserve dismissal. There is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the wires affixed by the appellants were at the height of 8 feet from the road whereas wires affixed by Punjab State Electricity Board were at the height of 12 feet or more from the road. The appellants have failed to substantiate this plea by leading cogent evidence that in fact, the wires affixed by electricity board had broken and fallen on the wires affixed by the appellant. Rather the finding of both the courts below after appreciating the 5 RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M) evidence led by the parties on record is that the wires affixed by the appellant had broken and had fallen on the wires of affixed by the electricity board and due to this reason, Rajinder Singh had died and two buffalos belonging to the plaintiffs had also died. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered with in appeal by this Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly both the appeals stand dismissed. [ Sabina ] Judge 18.12.2009 sd 6