1 Reserved on 05.03.2025 Delivered on 08 .05.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 169 of 2022 Vijay Sidara S/o Late Bhagwan Das Sidara, Aged about 38 years, R/o Main Road Torwa, Bilaspur, Police Station - Torwa, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No. 7974079559 ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Sunder Devi W/o Late Rajendra Sahu, aged about 22 years 2. Ashwani Sahu S/o Late Ranglal Sahu Aged About 50 Years 3. Smt. Sonai Sahu W/o Ashwani Sahu Aged About 45 Years Respondents No. 1 to 3 are R/o Village Salka Nawagaon, Tahsil and Police Station - Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Through Its Executive Engineer (Sancharan And Sandharan) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Office Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Shri Abhishek Singh on behalf of Shri K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Shri Abhyuday Singh, Advocate DB: Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey and Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Judgment This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) has been filed by appellant defendant No.1 assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment dated 11 July, 2022 passed by 2 the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G) (for short trial Court) in civil suit No. 16-B/2019. By the impugned judgment learned trial Court has passed the decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 8,86,000/- against the appellant/defendant No.1 to be paid to the respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs within a period of two months, failing which simple interest @ of 6% would be required to be paid 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that on 24.07.2018 the appellant/defendant No.1 had the deceased namely Rajendra for the construction work of his building, and that when the deceased was measuring the length and breadth of the roof with a steel tape, he came in contact with the high tension electric wire, fell unconscious due to the shock of electric current, was taken to CIMS for treatment where he was declared dead. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3/plaintiffs field a suit for compensation of Rs. 12,50,000/- stating therein that the deceased aged about 25 years at the relevant time used to earn Rs. 10,000/- from the centering work. 3. Written statement was filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 and respondent No.4/defendant No.2 inter alia pleading that there was no negligence on the part of appellant/defendant No.1 and the deceased himself was negligent while doing his work, and therefore, the respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs are not entitled for any compensation and being so the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 examined 1 witness and exhibited 8 documents and appellant/defendant No.1 examined as many as 2 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. 5. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence brought on record decreed the suit of the respondents No. 1 to 3/ plaintiffs in part holding the appellant/defendant No. 1 liable to pay an amount of Rs. 8,86,000/- to the 3 plaintiffs within a period of two months from the date of judgment impugned or else the said amount would carry simple interest at the rate of 6% till the payment is made. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 submits that by applying the doctrine of strict liability, the learned trial Court exonerated the respondent No.4/defendant No. 2 from making payment of compensation to the plaintiffs, which is illegal and contrary to law. He submits that it was the duty of respondent No.4/defendant No.2 to make sure that proper distance is maintained between the high rise buildings and the high tension wire passing nearby. According to him, in the case in hand the respondent No.4/defendant No. 2 has not discharged the said obligation in ensuring the sufficient distance between such buildings and the electric wire passing by and, therefore, the learned trial Court has committed an error in exonerating the respondent No.4/defendant No.2 of its liability to compensate the plaintiffs.. Apart from this, he submits that the deceased Rajendra Sahu was performing his duty negligently while taking measurement of the cetering work as a result of which he came in contact with live electric wire of respondent No.4/defendant No.2 and there was no negligence on the part of the appellant/defendant No.1. Alternatively he submits that at the most it can be a case of contributory negligence on the part of appellant/defendant No.1 and the respondent No.4/defendant No.2. On the quantum of the compensation, he submits that the income of the deceased could not established by cogent and reliable evidence and that the multiplier applied is also on the higher side and being so the findings recorded by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. To buttress his submissions, he placed reliance of the judgment of this Court in WPC No. 891/2021 Omprakash Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others dated 09.08.2021 and judgment of the 4 Supreme Court in case of H.S.E.B and others Vs. Ram Nath and others reported in (2004) 5 SCC 793. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/plaintiffs supports the judgment impugned and submits that trial Court after due assessment of evidence, material on record gave a categorical finding on all the issues, therefore, and the same cannot be interfered with in this appeal. He submits that a criminal case was registered against the owner of the house and on the principle of preponderance of probability, the appellant/defendant No.1 is liable to pay the compensation, therefore, the appeal is liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. Abhyuday Singh learned counsel for the respondent No.4/defendant No.2 submits that it cannot be held liable to pay compensation by any stretch of imagination as there was sufficient distance between the roof top of the appellant/defendant No.1 and the electric wire. He submits that in fact the owner of the house ought to have informed the respondent No.4/defendant No.2 while raising construction if the high tension wire was to fall near his building. He placed reliance the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Caitano De Mello Vs. The Meridian Electrical Engineering Co. reported in AIR (1927) Bom 357. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record. 10. The finding recorded by the trial Court as to the negligence of the appellant/defendant No.1 is based on the evidence of the respondent No.1/plaintiff Sunderdevi and that of respondent No.4/defendant No.2 from which is clearly established that the deceased who at the relevant time was working in the construction work of appellant/defendant No.1 got electrocuted while coming in contact with the electric wire as the proper security measures were not adhered to by him, and without informing the respondent 5 No.4/defendant No.2 beforehand about the nearness of the electric line and the construction site. As the deceased at the relevant time was mason by occupation, keeping the mind the law holding the field the monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- and the annual being 72,000/- taken by the trial Court also appears fully justified, and so also the multiplier of 17 so taken looking to his age to be 25 years. On other conventional heads also the amount awarded is appropriate. 11. In this case the deceased had climbed up on the overhanging eaves and came in contact with the electric wire while taking measurement with the tape. The Central Electricity Authority Notification dated 20.09.2010 which has been pressed in service on behalf of respondent No.4/defendant No.2 goes to show that it was incumbent upon the appellant/defendant No.1 to furnish information in writing to the electricity supplier or the inspector with regard to any imminent danger on account of the overhead hanging electric wire so that the necessary remedial steps could taken by it. However, in this case no such steps appear to have been taken by the appellant/defendant No.1 while carrying out the construction work in his house which claimed the life of a young man in this case. It is not the case here that the appellant defendant No.1 ever asked the defendant No.2 to ensure proper distancing of the electricity line from the under construction house of appellant/defendant No.1, rather he allowed the construction to go on knowing that risk involved. Thus the doctrine of strict liability would operate against the appellant/defendant No.1 who had allowed the deceased to carry out the work knowing that the electric closer by might pose a risk. There does not appear to be any negligence on the part of the defendant No.2 – the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board relatable to the accidental death because it was not made aware by the appellant/defendant No.1 about the 6 construction work being carried out ignoring the probable danger from the electric wire. The judgments sought to be taken support of by the counsel for the appellant being distinguishable on facts are of no help to him. 12. Accordingly, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. The judgment impugned holding the appellant/defendant No.1 to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to3/plaintiffs is hereby affirmed. 13. Appeal is thus dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge H.Ansari/J