1N THE HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Fust Appeal No “2% )1 2008 (S B'} WW 'iEmm APPELLANTS : 1) Junior Engineer DEFENDANT$ Chhattisgarh Stat6 Electiricty Board, Ratanpur Tahsil Kata, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2)’ Divisional Engineer, T 8r, T, Department Chhattisgarh State Electiricty Board, Pendra Road FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION g6 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN CIVIL SUIT NO 4B/2006 VALUED AT RS 60 000 Being aggneved by the impugned judgment 85 decree No 4B/2006 1e Nanki ram Vs Junior Engineer and others on 19/08/2008 fastening the liability on the District Bilaspur (C.G.) w3)‘”"' Chhattisgarh State Electiricty Board, Through Executive Engineer Tifra Bilaspur Versus ”TH AO V‘f" J RESPONDENTS l) Nanki Ram }S/ o l Shri Manharan V‘ PLAINTIFFS W Ram Ravidas Aged 14 years, Caste Harijan, Occupation Labour , R/o Village Chapora, Tahsil Kota, PS. Ratanpur, maemwg Q/w\\ C$9 ‘90 sPUR District Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently R/ o Village Shiv put, Tahsil PaJi, Distt Korba. V State of Chhattisgarh Through : Collector Bilaspur, District HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH AT BILASPUR Singie Bench: First Aggeal No.203 of 2008 Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh State El and others ectricity Board verSUS Nanki Ram and another Post for N —O1~2011 Sd/- Prasham kumar Mishra Judge a a wwwuwuwm mm» ¢ n x 1; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Smqle Bench Hon’ble Shrl Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra First Appeal No.203 of 2008 Present: Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. None for respondent No.1 though served. First Appeal under Section 96 read wrth Order 41 Rule 1 of the Cod of CIVII Procedure 1908 ORDER (Passed on liwanuary, 2011) The appellants/defendants have called in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court directing the appellants/defendants to pay damages of Rs.60,000/— to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment till the date of its realisation. 2. Plaintiff’s case, in short, was that at about 1 PM. on 27-2— 2004, he had gone to attend the call of nature at an open place in the village and at that time a live wire of 11 K.V. fell down on him and he received burn injuries and suffered permanent disability. He was brought to Primary Health Centre, Ratanpur and was v AppeHants ' Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and others versus Respondents Nanki Ram and another 2 subsequently shifted to the Burn Unit at Sardar Patel Hospital, Bilaspur. The plaintiff claimed compensation of R525 Lakhs. 3. The case of the defendants was that the incident was an act of the God as because of heavy winds/storm the electric supply line was broken and fell down on the road and as such there was absolutely no negligence on the part of the defendants/appellants in maintaining the supply line. The extent of damages suffered by the plaintiff and the amount claimed as compensation was also denied. 4. Both the parties led evidence in course of trial. While recording finding on issue No.1, the learned trial Court has found that the live electric wire was broken because of the negligence of the defendants/appellants and while deciding issue No.2, it has been found that the plaintiff received burn injuries on his left hand and left ankle sustaining disability upto 45%. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is satished that the findings recorded by the trial Court on material issues do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Learned counsel has read part of the evidence referred by the trial Court, however, from the said part of the evidence, it is not born out that the hnding on the defence of the defendants/appellants that the accident took place by an act of the God has been proved. lt has correctly been held by the trial Court that from the statement of K.K.Diwan, Assistant Engineer, it is not fully established that the electric line was maintained properly and there was no negligence on the part of the defendants/appellants. It has been found by the 6. The triat Court has only awarded Rs.60,000/— as compensation after elaborately discussing the evidence on issue No.4, After referring to the documents of medical treatment EXP-3 to P—62 including the disability certificate, the learned trial Court has awarded lump sum amount of Rs‘60,000/- as compensation. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered and the treatment administered to the injured in the Primary Health Centre, Ratanpur, Chhattisgarh institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur and Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, as referred in paragraphs 18 to 22 of the impugned judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation awarded is reasonable and no interference in the quantum of compensation allowed in favour of the plaintiff is called for. 7. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The impugned judgment and decree is, thus, amrmed. The first appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. A decree be drawn-up accordingly. 5w- Prashant kumar Mishra Judge Gopai mw ggmm