[2025:RJ-JP:47141] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 866/2023 1. Lalta Bai W/o Late Shri Badrilal Bheel, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Manpura At Present R/o Nagar Kota Stone, Growth Centre, Jhalrapatan, Tehsil Jhalrapatan District Jhalawar (Raj.) 2. Sonu S/o Late Shri Badrilal Bheel, Aged About 14 Years, Minor Through Mother Lalta Bai W/o Late Shri Badrilal Bheel, R/o Manpura At Present R/o Nagar Kota Stone, Growth Centre, Jhalrapatan, Tehsil Jhalrapatan District Jhalawar (Raj.) 3. Payal D/o Late Shri Badrilal Bheel, Aged About 9 Years, Minor Through Mother Lalta Bai W/o Late Shri Badrilal Bheel, R/o Manpura At Present R/o Nagar Kota Stone, Growth Centre, Jhalrapatan, Tehsil Jhalrapatan District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus 1. Chairman, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur, Vidyut Bhawan, Near New Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Superintending Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar 3. Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.) 4. Junior Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakash Kumar Jha For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Chauhan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (2 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] 1. Date of conclusion of arguments 19 /1 1 /2025 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 19 /1 1 /2025 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment 4. Date of pronouncement 21 / 11/2025 1. The Appellants have preferred the instant appeal by challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2023 passed by District Judge, Jhalawar (hereinafter, “trial Court”) in Civil Suit (Fatal Claim) No.05/2021, whereby, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellants under Section 1(A) of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (for short 'the Act') seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased Badrilal Bheel by electrocution. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that one Badrilal Bheel had taken on rent an agricultural land of one Kanwarlal Bheel situated in the village Kherasi, Tehsil Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar and was executing agricultural work to earn his livelihood. On 21.06.2019, at about 01:00 PM, Badrilal was working in his field and was pouring fertilisers while standing on a tractor trolley, where he came in contact with 11 kV electric line that was hanging below the fixed standard height and as a result, Badrilal died due to electrocution. It is averred that several complaints were made to the higher authorities regarding the height of the aforesaid 11 kV electric line, indicating that the line is below the benchmark and consequences of such type may occur, however, no action was taken by the respondents regarding [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (3 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] the same and the death of the deceased Badrilal Bheel was a result of negligence on part of the respondents. 3. The respondents in their pleadings has averred that the electrocution was the result of the deceased 's own negligence, as he was standing on a 10-foot trolley and while pouring out the fertilisers from the trolley, the spade touched the high tension line. It is also averred that there was no negligence on the part of Respondent No. 1, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur ("JVVNL") or any of its employees and the respondents are not responsible for the accident and have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The learned trial Court, based on the pleadings, formulated the following issues:- "1- vk;k fnukad 21 twu] 2019 dks nksigj djhc 01 cts xzke [kSjklh rglhy >kyjkikVu ftyk >kykokM esa cnzhyky ds VªsDVj Vªksyh esa [kM+s gksdj [kkn Mkyrs le; [ksr ls xqtj jgh 11 ds-oh- fo|qr ykbZu ls gkFk Vdjk tkus ds dkj.k dh otg ls mldh e`R;q gks xbZ] ftlesa izfroknhx.k dh mis{kk ,oa ykijokgh jgh gS\ 2- vk;k oknhx.k e`rd cnzhyky dh e`R;q ds {kfriwfrZ isVs 91]20]000@& #i;s izfroknhx.k ls la;qDrr% ,oa i`Fkdr%&izFkdr% izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k nq?kZVuk Lo;a e`rd cnzhyky dh mis{kk ,oa ykijokgh dk ifj.kke gS] ftlesa izfroknhx.k dk dksbZ nks’k ugha gS\ 4- vk;k VªsDVj Vªksyh ds pkyd ,oa Lokeh vko’;d i{kdkj gS\ 5- vuqrks’k\" 5. To prove the issues above, the appellants examined PW-1 Lalta Bai, wife of the deceased and PW-2 Mangilal, and the respondents examined DW-1 Adarsh Tiwari and DW-2 Vikas Yadav. 6. The appellants have submitted documents relating to the proceedings conducted by the Police under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., (Exhibit- 1), Report submitted before the Police Station (Exhibit- [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (4 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] 2), Site plan (Exhibit- 3), Deceased Panchnama (Exhibit- 4), Memo regarding handing over the deceased dead body to his legal heirs (Exhibit- 5), Post-Mortem report (Exhibit- 8), legal notice served upon the respondents along with the postal receipt (Exhibit- 9 to Exhibit- 17) and photographs (Exhibit- 18-19). 7. The respondents have placed on record an inquiry report conducted by Assistant Engineer Rural Jaipur Discom, Jhalrapatan, the statement of the witnesses recorded by the inquiry officer (Exhibit- D.1 to D.8), Site plan (Exhibit- D.5), and receipt register (Exhibit- D.6). 8. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties decided the Issue No.1 in favour of respondents and observed that the accident was caused due to negligent act on part of the deceased as the deceased was standing over a tractor and was pouring the fertilizers with a spade and accidentally touched the 11 kV line which resulted into his death and consequently decided the Issue No.2 against the appellants and denied the compensation by deciding Issue No.4 against the respondents. 9. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence and held that it was negligence on part of the deceased, without considering the inquiry report, Exhibit- D.3, whereby the Inquiry Officer categorically observed as under: "nq?kZVuk dk dkj.k Jh cnzhyky iq= Jh jruyky Hkhy ds [ksr esa ls xqtj jgh xksfoUniqjk QhMj dh 11 dsoh fo|qr ykbZu dk Liku yEck gS bl dkj.k tehu ls 11 dsoh fo|qr ykbZu dh yEcor nqjh de gksus ls ?kVuk fnukad 21-06-2019 dks VªsDVj&VªkWyh esa p<+dj QkoM+k Åapk dj [kkn QSykus ds iz;kl esa 11 dsoh ykbZu ds izsj.k izHkko ds dkj.k mlds lEidZ esa vkus ls mDr fo|qr nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZ Fkh tks fd Jh [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (5 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] cnzhyky iq= Jh jruyky Hkhy dh Lo;a dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k ?kfVr gqbZ FkhA" 10. It is also contended that in Exhibit- D.3, the Inquiry Officer recommended that at the place of occurrence where the 11 kV electric line was erected, a spun pole was required to be installed to prevent the recurrence of the said event in future. It is further contended that the Trial Court, while concluding the issue No.1 at para 10, assumed that the deceased, after standing at a height of 10 feet while pouring the fertilisers with a spade, came in contact with the 11 kV line. 11. It is further contended that the Trial Court wrongly held that the 11 kV line was 15 feet above the land and dismissed the petition of the appellant. The trial Court applied guesswork and improperly held that the 11 kV line was at a height of 15 feet, wherein, in contrast, Exhibit- D.3 itself shows that the height of the wire over the agricultural field was not in accordance with the height that ought to have been at the place of occurrence. It is also contended that, as per Rule 77 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (in short, "Rules of 1956"), the ground clearance ought to have been 5.2 meters. It is also claimed that DW.1 Adarsh Tiwari, in his cross-examination, has wrongly deposed that the 11 kV electric wires were at a height of 19 feet from the ground level, as no such report was submitted before the Trial Court to substantiate the deposition of DW.1 Adarsh Tiwari. Therefore, considering the above facts, the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court ought to be set aside. 12. At Last, it is prayed that if the Court finds that the negligence was on the part of the respondents, then the matter may be [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (6 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] remitted back to the Trial Court for deciding the quantum of compensation. 13. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents justified the order passed by the trial Court and contended that the trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence, rightly concluded that the appellant was negligent. The accident occurred when the deceased was standing on a tractor and was pouring fertiliser with the help of a spade, which came in contact with the 11 kV line. The appreciation of the facts above is based upon the evidence adduced by the parties and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition of the claimant under Section 1(A) of the Act, therefore, considering the above, the present appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed. 14. Heard and perused the impugned judgment. 15. The impugned judgment of the trial Court clearly shows that the trial Court have not considered the documentary evidence adduced by the respondents themselves. The witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants, notably PW-1 Lalta Bai, in her cross- examination has denied that the deceased was standing over a tractor and was pouring fertilizer stored in a tractor trolley with a spade and the accident occurred due to the deceased's own negligence. During her cross-examination, she has also stated that she was not present at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, as far as PW-1 Lalta Bai is concerned her statements are not relevant for deducing the inference that the deceased was standing over the tractor trolley and was pouring fertilizer with a spade. The other relevant witness, PW-2 Mangilal, in his deposition at para 3 of his affidavit, has clearly mentioned that the 11 kV line was [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (7 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] looming within a distance of 10 feet from the ground and they were in a dangerous position. During the cross-examination, the witness has denied that Mangilal was standing on a trolley over a tractor and was pouring fertilizer with a spade which accidentally touched the 11 kV line. He has further denied the fact that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and that the JVVNL electricity line was installed at the correct height. 16. Whereas, the respondents have put forward a specific defence that the 11 kV line was in accordance with the provisions of Rules of 1956 and the deceased himself was negligent as he was standing over a tractor trolley and was pouring fertilizer. The defence in support has examined DW-1 Adarsh Tiwari, who, in his cross-examination, stated that he is not aware about the ground clearance for the 11 kV electricity line and that as per Rule 77 of Rules of 1956, it should be 5.2 meters. During his cross- examination, he further denies that the 11 kV line was only 10 to 11 feet above; instead, he has stated that the said KV line was 19 feet above. He has also admitted that he did not measure the height of the wire from the ground level and that Exhibit- D.3, the inquiry report, bears his signature. Similarly, the other witness, DW-2 Vikas Yadav, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he did not endeavour to see the tractor trolley, though he went to the place of occurrence. He has stated that the ground clearance was above 15 feet and has also admitted that he did not measure the height of the wires from ground level and has further admitted that the inquiry report was prepared. The learned Trial Court merely applied the guesswork and has observed that the deceased was standing by the trolley touching the tractor and was pouring [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (8 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] the fertilizer stored in the trolley with the spade and accidentally touched the wire. 17. In the inquiry report, Exhibit- D.3, the Inquiry Officer has taken statement of PW-2 Mangilal; however, he has denied the fact that the deceased was having any spade with him. The Inquiry Officer in his report, Exhibit- D.3 clearly described in a heading of ‘summary of accident’ that the ground clearance of the 11 kV line was 11 to 12 feet. In the conclusion, the Inquiry Officer also recorded the finding that the span of the 11 KV electric line is long and the accident occurred due to a shortage of ground clearance and the department did not examine the Inquiry Officer to prove that the deceased was standing over the tractor trolley, which was attached to a tractor and while pouring the pile of fertilizer from the trolley on the land, the spade came into contact with the 11 kV electric line. The person who carried out the investigation could have provided the best evidence, however, the respondent did not endeavour to examine him. The statement by DW-1 Adarsh Tiwari that the ground clearance was 19 feet at the time of the occurrence lacks any supporting evidence and has admitted that he did not measure the height from the ground where the 11 kV line was running. It is also admitted that Exhibit- D.3 bears his signature and as a departmental witness, he has demonstrated a lack of awareness of the rules, which clearly stipulates that the ground clearance should be at least 4.6 meters. Similarly, the other witness DW-2 Vikas Yadav in his deposition, in the cross-examination has stated that he has not seen the occurrence and that the ground clearance was 15 feet, however, he also did not measure the ground clearance and the report, [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (9 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] Exhibit- D.3, prepared by the Inquiry Officer has also not measured the height from the ground up to the wire, however, in his report, it is clearly stated that wires were hovering and in the ‘summary of accident’ has mentioned that the cables were at the height of 10 to 11 feet. 18. 18. The learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses adduced and by assuming that the deceased was standing on a trolley attached to the tractor and while pouring the fertilizer stored in it, accidentally touched the spade without a wire, therefore, considering the above, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court is perverse and not based on any sound principle of law. 19. At this juncture, it is apposite to note the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162:- “7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such a diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (10 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability i.e. the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.” (Emphasis Supplied) 20. The judgment laid the foundation that established the strict liability of electricity boards for electrocution incidents, emphasizing that potential dangers necessitate high standards of care. The judgment clarified that the supplier is liable even if the accident is from a diverted line, as it is the supplier's duty to prevent such pilferage. 21. In the present case, the defence was unable to prove that the accident occurred as the deceased was standing on a trolley attached to the tractor and having a spade in his hand and ever if it is presumed that the deceased may have acted with some negligence, then also the respondents were duty bound to maintain the parameters as the 11 kV line falls in the hazardous [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (11 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] category and the respondents are liable for the fault and principle of strict liability is applicable. 22. The respondents have not maintained the parameters which are required as per the Rules of 1956, as Rule 77(3) clearly provides that:- "77. Clearance above ground of the lowest conductor- (1) ... (2) ... (3) No conductor of in overhead line including service lines, erected elsewhere than along or across any street shall be at a height less than- (a) For low, medium and high voltages lines upto and including 11,000 volts, if bare 4.6 metres (b) For low, medium and high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts, if insulated 4.0 metres (c) For high voltage lines above 11,000 volts 5.2 metres" 23. Thus, it is apparent that the respondents were duty-bound to maintain the statutory height of 4.6 meters above ground level; however, the report does not mention the height of the wires running over the field from the ground level. It is not expected of a person of rural background that he would lay the evidence with precision and would be able to prove that the electrical lines which were going over the field were rightly laid. 24. It is the bounden duty of the department to establish that the lines laid down at the place of occurrence were in accordance with the parameters provided in the rules. The respondent department is responsible for ensuring the safe and secure installation of the electric line. Understandably, demonstrating strict adherence to all required parameters for the 11 kV electric line can be a complex task. The respondents were unable to provide proof of crucial details, such as the span between the two [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (12 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] poles connecting the wires and the precise vertical height of the cables from ground level. They also could not provide exact information regarding the pole design, approved vertical height, the physical properties of the conductor- such as weight and material- or the maximum permissible sag to accommodate tension over the distance between poles. It is likely that, before installing the 11 kV line, the department had issued detailed project reports, drawings, and specifications that covered aspects such as pole placement, ground clearance, conductor properties, and cable insulation, ensuring safety and compliance, however, such documentation has not been submitted and given the department's expertise, it would be expected that they could readily provide these specifications to certify their compliance and responsibility. The regulations specify minimum clearances for 11 kV lines to prevent electrical shocks and other hazards and it is reasonable to understand that expecting a layperson to present these technical details in court is unrealistic; the department's efforts should be recognized for their attempt to meet safety standards. 25. In the instant case, the department has failed to establish that the specifications as mentioned above were strictly adhered to or not and the learned trial Court, in a cursory manner, without appreciating the evidence and on mere apprehension, dismissed the appellant's claim while deciding the Issue Nos. 1 and 3 against the appellant, and dismissed the main relief regarding the quantum. The learned trial Court has thus committed a grave error and the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court about Issue Nos. 1 to 3 are perverse and not sustainable. [2025:RJ-JP:47141] (13 of 13) [CFA-866/2023] 26. Accordingly, the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court regarding Issue Nos. 1 and 3 are set aside, as it has been proven that the deceased was not at fault but rather the negligence was on the part of the respondents. The trial court has rightly decided Issue No. 4 in favour of the appellants, as it was not required to implead the owner of the tractor to establish the negligence of the respondents. Thus, the findings of Issue No.4 are affirmed. 27. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal preferred by the appellant is partly allowed and the trial Court is directed to decide Issue No. 2 afresh regarding the quantum and the parties shall appear before the trial Court on 08.12.2025. 28. The record is to be sent to the trial court forthwith. The trial court shall make every effort to determine issue No. 2, preferably within a period of three months from the date of this order. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/21