R.S.A. No.211 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.211 of 1992 Date of Decision:15.10.2008 Union of India and another .....Appellants Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board, Jind and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** HARBANS LAL, J. The facts which led to the filing of the suit are that on 29.7.1989 at about 1:30/ 2:00 p.m., buffalo of Suraj Mal- plaintiff was returning home from outside. When it neared the electric pole and the telephone pole, which lay installed near the dividing road of defence colony and block of Urban Estate, Jind, buffalo received shock by live current leaking from the electric wire as it had by chance touched the stay wire of the telephone pole which had live current. The electric current was leaking from the electric wire which was loose and touching the telephone pole. On coming to know about this incident, he reported the matter to the police. The buffalo was got medico-legally examined from the veterinary doctor who opined that the same is completely disabled and cannot be cured. He spent a sum of Rs.3,000/- on treatment of the buffalo, which could not be cured. Thus, he suffered a loss of Rs.17,000/-. The buffalo suffered this disability due to the negligence of the Electricity Board of Haryana State as well as Telephone Department. On these allegations, he filed the suit R.S.A. No.211 of 1992 -2- against the Electricity Board as well as the Telephone Department for the recovery of Rs.14,000/- as damages. In answer to this claim, the defendants No.1 and 2 inter-alia pleaded that this suit is not maintainable and is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties whereas their co-defendants No.3 and 4 came up with the plea that the telephone wire have a current of very low velocity i.e., 45 vault which can cause no damage to any animal whatsoever. Lastly, all the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.14,000/- from the defendants as alleged? OPD 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Jind decreed the suit against defendants No.1 and 2 for the recovery of Rs.14,000/- as damages along with costs and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation of the entire decretal amount vide his judgment/ decree dated 31.5.1991. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the Haryana State Electricity Board as well as its Executive Engineer, Operation, Jind, (defendants) went in appeal, which was partly allowed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Jind vide his judgment and decree dated 28.9.1991. While modifying the findings returned by the learned trial Court on Issue No.1, it was held by the learned First Appellate R.S.A. No.211 of 1992 -3- Court that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.11,000/- from all the defendants and the liability of the defendants No.1 and 2 is 70%, while that of defendants No.3 and 4 is 30%. Being dissatisfied therewith, the Union of India (defendant No.3) and the Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Hisar (defendant No.4) have preferred this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for respondent No.3- Suraj Mal. None has come forward to argue on behalf of Haryana State Electricity Board (defendant No.1) and the Executive Engineer, Operation Haryana State Electricity Board, Jind (defendant No.2). The learned Additional District Judge-I, Jind in his judgment dated 28.9.1991 has observed as under:- “As regards the liability of the electricity board or the telephone department, I am of the view that both are liable and the liability cannot be fastened only on the HSEB. Under the telephone rules it is incumbent upon the telephone department to instal telephone poles and fix the telephone wire on it at least 5 feet away from the electricity poles and the wire. It is also provided that the line should not cross each other and it should not go parallel beneath the electric wires. However, in the case in hand, it is proved that these guidelines have not been followed by the telephone department as it has come in the evidence that the distance between the electric wires and the telephone wires was only about 2 feet. Although, it has not come on the record but judicial notice of it can be taken that generally the telephone poles are fixed after the electric poles R.S.A. No.211 of 1992 -4- are fixed and in such circumstances, duty of the telephone department becomes more and they cannot escape by saying that the electric current had passed through the electric wires. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I assess the liability of the electricity board, i.e. defendants no.1 and 2 (appellants in the appeal) as 70 per cent and that of the defendants no.3 and 4 (proforma – respondents No.2 and 3 in appeal).” Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate on behalf of the appellants puts that obviously the learned First Appellate Court without referring to any written guidelines and merely by taking judicial notice has saddled the appellants with the liability to pay 30% of Rs.11,000/-, the amount of compensation to the plaintiff- respondent. Thus, these observations being without any basis are liable to be reversed. This contention seems to be attractive on their face, but without substance. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Telephone Department is obligated to lay the telephone wires by maintaining a considerable distance throughout with the overhead electricity wires. It emanates from the observations of the learned First Appellate Court that the distance between these wires was only two feet. It further follows that the electric pole and the telephone pole wire lay installed jointly, near the dividing road of Defence Colony and the block of Urban Estate, Jind. The electric current was emitting from the live electric wire which was loose touching the telephone pole and the stay wire. If the appellants had erected their poles as per their rules by maintaining the distance from electric poles, this occurrence would have been averted. Thus, to my mind, no fault can be found with the findings returned by the R.S.A. No.211 of 1992 -5- learned First Appellate Court in arriving at the conclusion that the appellants- defendants are liable to pay 30% of the compensation, i.e., Rs.11,000/-. Consequently, the modification recorded by the learned First Appellate Court in the findings returned by the learned trial Court on Issue No.1 call for no interference and are affirmed. No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. Sequelly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Of course, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. October 15, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE