^.^;- r\^^'£' ^^^i^- »--^!P^r1 ''1 ^.A ^Cr- ^ro ^•^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE , AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ?'^i'S'6i ,<6cr<'/- First appeal No.- 6% /2009 AppeUants: Defendants: 1. Chairman, C.S.E.B. Raipur (Now Known as C.S.P.D.C.LTD.), Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Junior Engineer, C.S.E.B. Branch KodaTarai, Tah. 8s Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Respondents: 1. Ghasi Ram, S/o Dasi, aged about 46 years Plaintiffs: 2. Rukmani Bai, W/o Ghasi Ram, aged about 40 years. 3. Yamuna, D/o Ghasi Ram, aged about 20 yrs. All Cast Kunihar, labour, R/o ViU. Duinar Muda, P.S., Tah. & Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Appeal under section 96 of the code of CivU Procedure -o^i—LGJ —^3LQOCL wl_fcu.r_3rd_ i\ \( Q\ Ba'^rfiEl: S FirstADOea! No. 68 OF 2S Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Ghasiram & others Post for pronouncernent of judament on 13 /1-3/2011 Sd/- N.KAgarwal Judge < < FirstAppeai No. 88 of Defendants Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and another. Ghasiram and others. &i ^\n le Mr. IM.K. Pres=nt : ft/lr. 8.P. GuDta, counsei forthe appeliants. Mr. K4.K. Sinha, counse! forthe respondents. (Deiivered on |5.10.2011) 1. This is derendants' appeai .under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.01.2009 passed by 3rd Additiona! District Judge (Fast Track Court), Raigarh in Civil Suit No.6-B/2007 whereby a decree has been passed to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of suit till its actual payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that: On 15.1.2006 when Dolmati (since deceased) i.e. daughter or' respondents No.1 & 2 and slster of respondent No. 3 herein was going to coiiect cow dung from the field at viliage Dumar \4uda, sne came in contact vrfith supporting Iron wire of the electric pole in vi/hich electric current vvas flowin.q and due to electrocution she died on the sDot itseif. 3. Respondents i.e. parents and sister of deceased Dolmati have filed the suit claiming compensation against the appellants herein to the tune Rs.1,27,000/- for the death of deceased Dolmati. 4. The court below framed issues. li respondents examined Ghasiram (PW-1), f Balram (PW-3) whereas defendants examin Assistant Enoineer as D.W.-1. 1 support of their case the, Sallabh Chauhan (PVV-2) and ! ed one Mukesh Kumar Sahu, 5. The learned trial Court decreed plaintit'fs' suit and awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondents aiong with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of fillna of suit tiil its actual payrnent against the appellants; /y^ 2 finding inter alia: the appeiiants are responsible for the above accident. Hence this appeal. 6. Shri B.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants wouid submit: respondents t'ailed to prove Dolmati died due to electrocution as alleged; no notice of accident was given to appellant as provided under Section 161 of the Eiectricity Act, 2003; appiication preferred is time barrsd and tne judgment and decree deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, M.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit: the factum of accident has not been denied by the appellant rather admitted by Mukesh Kumar Sahu examined by the appellant as DW-1; suit was flled on 1.3.2006 was returned for its presentation to proper court, on 28.2.2007 for want of pecuniap/ jurisdiciion as per distribution memo; the same was again fited on 3.3.2007 which was again returned on 13.3.2007 with permission to file the same after rectifying sorne formal mistakes. Plaintiffs after rectifying the mistakes again filed a suit on 20.3.2007. After exclusion of time for which the suit was pending befors the court of District Judge, the suit is within time and the appeal preferred is misconceived and liable for dismissal. 8. ! have heard counsel for the parties and perused the materia! avaiiable on record including impugned judgment and decree. 9. The submission of Mr. B.P. Gupta that respondents have failed to prove Doimati died on account of electrocution is devoid of merit on the face of record. A careful reading of the pleadings of the parties would reveal the factum of accident and death of Dotmati due to electrocution 'was not. in much dispute. The dispute raised by the appei!ants is that deceased Doimati died on account of her own negligence. Merg intimation (Exs.P-1 & P-2), Final Investigatson Report (Ex.P-3) and post mortern report (Ex. P-4) are also suggestlve of the fact that Dolmati died as. she carne in contact with supporting iron wire of the eleotric poie in which electric current was flowin.q. 10. As per Mukesh Kumar Sahu (DVV-1), the accident had occurred due to negligence of deceased herself, deceased was fpund dead near 11,000 vottage eiectric line, he is unaware whether or not the instruments instaiied near electrlc pole were of low quality, electric current was flowing through supporting iron wire of the electric pole.. rb '5 /y%' ie' ;i. t;"«?r^s ^ •s^'^^- 11. VVhen the matter is examined In the light of above evidence and material piaced on record, there is no iota of doubt in the mind of this Court that Dolmati died as she came in contact with supporting iron wire of the electric pole in which electric current was flowing. 12. The responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular iocality is statutoriiy conferred on the Electricity Board. if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary iiability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electnc energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted t.hrQugh the vvires is potemiaily of dangerous dimension the Board had the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of sych energy or to see eiectricity should not fiow from the supportlng wire of electric. pole. '13. It is ths lookout of the appellant/Board that electricity should not fiow from the supportlng iron wire of the eiectric pole and fbr that proper device must be used. The authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra auty to chalk out measures to pre«/ent such mishaps. The Board is aiso liabie under the strict liability rule. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such actlvity. 14. Therefbre, It is crystai clear that accident had occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the appellants. So Tar as amount of compensation is concerned, the young girl of 17 years has died in the accident and the trial Court has awarded onfy Rs.1,00,000/- for her death Virhich cannot be said to be on higher side. i5. Merely becsuse no intimation under Section 161 ofthe Electricity Act has been given to the appellants in a case where the happening of acciaent was known to the appellants Is of no consequence and wouid not aebar the claimants from claiming compensation and the above ground raised by Mr. B.P. Gupts is devoid of merit. 16. The core question therefore arises for determination of this Court is whether or not in t.he facts and circumstances of the case, the suit filed by the claimants/plaintiffs is time barred, "•••s \\ s ^.'f '\-.^y ^ 17. In the instant case, the original suit was filed on 1.3.2006. The piaint was returned for its presentation to proper court on 28.2.2007 for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit was then filed before the court having pecuniary jurisdiction on 3.3.2007. The trial Court returned plaint due to some mistakes vtfhich was trivial in nature with permission to fiie same after rectification of mistakes. Thereafter, the present suit was fiied on 20.3.2007. !t appears the suit was filed before the court of competent jurisdiction claiming Rs.14,95,600/- as compensation. Va'luation ofthe suit was reduced to'the extent of Rs.1,27,000/- as the plaintiffs was unable to pay requisite court fee. As per distribution memo after amendment in the valuation of the suit, the suit became triable by First Additional District Ju.a'ge, Raigarh, tnerefore. the learned District Judge returned plaint on 20.8.2007 for its presentation to proper court. 18. Plaintiffs thereafter filed the same before Raigarh having territorial jurisdiction. Judge having found some minor mistakes same for its presentation after its rectification. 3en filed on 20.3.2007 First Additional District Learnea' First Aa'ditionai In the piaint, returned the Therefore, the present suit 19. The Supreme Court in case of Ram Ujarey Vs. Union of India reparted in <1999) 1 SCC 685 has held: after return of plaint for its presentatlon before the appropriate court, the limitation would not run from the date of the crder, but would run from the date on which the piaint was returned and observed in para 21 as under: "21. The period of limitation within which Claim Petitions cgn be filed before the Tribunal is indicated in Section 21 of the Act. The contlngencies contemplated by Section 21 are not applicabie to the present case.T'ne sult, admittedly, was filed within time. it is another matter th.at it was filed in a court which had no jurisdiction and, therefore, the Tribunal, wl-iile ailovving the appeai filed against the decree passed by the trial court, directed the piaint to be returned to the appellant for presentation before the appropriate bench of the Tribunai. Some delay had occurred in the re-filing of the plaint before She Tribunal and as pointed out by the Tribunal itself the delay was only of one 'and half month, s!though, at one place, the Tribunal observed that there was a delay of about eight months. The period of eight months has.been calcuiated by the Tribunai from the date on v/hich ari, order was passed at Allahabad for the return of the piaint.The iimitation wouid not run from the date ofthe order, but wouid run from the date on v</hich ths plaint was >» -."''*' ^ f: ;'. 'f/ 'y returned and made available to the appellant, if the appeilant Vii'as not at fault. Two dates have been mentioned on which ihe piaint was returned : in the application for condonation ofdelay, the date mentioned is 20.10.1998.SincstheO.A. was filed before the Tribunal on 12.12.1998,there was delay of either three and a haif month or one and a half month, but not a deiay of eight months as obsewed by the Tribunai. The Tribunal had itse'f observed in an earlier part of its judgment that there was a deiav of one and half month onlv. 20. The Hiah. Court in case of Is reDorted in AIR'197'i Allahabad 47 and Brij Mohandas Gokulch rs reported in AIR 1971 ^ ;ation to proper court, the pli Section 14 of the Limitation •laint. nas iff i; ttil hei'3: On return of plaint for pres( entitled to the exclusion oftime under an endorsement of return is made 21. By applying the ratio of judgment of Supreme Court and High Court of Aliahabad and Madhva Pradesh In the facts and circumstances of the it is crystal clear that on return of piaint for presentation to proper court, the plaintiff is entitled to the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act tili an endorsement of return is rnade on the piaint. 22, The accident haa occurred on 15.1.2006. The original suit was fiied oh 'l .3,2006, the plaint v^as returned for its presentation to the proper court on 28.2.2007 and if the period between . 1.3.2006 and 28.2.2007 is ixcluded in computing the period of limitation i.e. one year in the instant case then certainly the suit filed on 20.3.2007 is wel! within time. Therefore, the ground of limitation raised by Mr. B.P. Gupta is also sans- •easons mentioned hereinabove and decree impugned is t is iiable to be ana' is. hereby dlsmis 24. Decree be drawn accordingiy. 23. For the in ttie devoid of me for interference The appeat being sed. No order as to Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge