1 2025:CGHC:48253-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal No. 24 of 2024 1 - Junior Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Bemetara, Tahsil And, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 – Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Company Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. … Appellants/Defendants versus 1 - Smt. Rajni Singh Wd/o Sudama @ Shitu Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Majgaon, Post Chhirha, Police Station Dadhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aanya Singh D/o Sudama @ Shitu Sigh Aged About 12 Years Minor Thus Being Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Rajni Singh. R/o Village Majgaon, Post Chhirha, Police Station Dadhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.09.22 17:56:44 +0530 2 3 - Yogeshwar Singh S/o Sudama @Shitu Singh Aged About 10 Years Minor Thus Being Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Rajni Singh. R/o Village Majgaon, Post Chhirha, Police Station Dadhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. … Plaintiffs 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : None though served For Respondent No. 4 /State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 19.09 .2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Appellants/Defendants No. 1 and 2 have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 07/10/2023 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 3 5B/2023 whereby the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,65,200/- along with an interest of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment has been granted in their favour for the death of Sudama @ Shitu Singh on account of electrocution. (For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.) 2. The points for determination in this first appeal preferred by the defendants are as under :- (i) Whether the finding recorded by the trial Court, holding that defendants No. 1 and 2 have been negligent and careless in performing their duty due to which deceased got electrocuted and died, is correct ? (ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded to the plaintiffs is just and proper ? 3. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :- 4 (i) On 21/05/2020 at about 09:30 AM, deceased Sudama alias Shitu Singh along with his brother went to his field to change the old service wire of bore pump, however, an 11KV wire which was running above broke and touched the pole due to which the deceased came into contact of the pole and got electrocuted and died. (ii) Plaintiffs, who are wife and two minor children of deceased Sudama alias Shitu Singh, respectively, filed a suit seeking compensation of Rs. 21,02,000/- stating inter alia that they were solely dependent upon the deceased, who was a Farmer, aged about 36 years and earned Rs. 3,00,000/- yearly by doing agricultural work and after his death, they have suffered serious financial crisis, therefore, the aforesaid compensation be awarded to them. (iii) Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement jointly and opposed the averments made by the plaintiffs and stated that deceased Sudama alias Shitu Singh died on account of his own negligence as he was making an illegal connection from the electricity pole and was extending a wire to his boring pump and as such, 5 the defendants are not liable to pay any compensation. (iv) Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by impugned judgment and decree dated 07/10/2023 and granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,65,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by which, the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 have preferred the instant first appeal on the ground that the trial Court has erred in holding that deceased Sudama alias Shitu Singh died on account of negligence of the defendants and the compensation awarded to the plaintiffs is excess, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned trial Court framed 4 issues and answered them as stated below :- वाद प्रश्न निष्कर्ष 1) क्या निदांक 21.05.2020 को सुबह करीब 09:30 बजे ग्राम - मजगांव, थाा दाढ़ी, जिजला - बेमेतरा छेत्रान्तगत प्राथ# ारायण सिंसह राजपूत के खेत के ऊपर से गुजरे 11 के .व्ही. खम्बा के तार में बोर पंप का निबजली तार टकरा "हाँ" 6 जाे से निवद्युत् करेंट लगे से, सुदामा उर्फ़ शीतू सिंसह दुर्घटाग्रस्त होकर मृत हुआ ? ? 2) क्या प्रतितवादीगणो के दोर्षपूण काय/ उपेक्षा एवं लापरवाही के कारण सुदामा उर्फ़ शीतू सिंसह की मृत्यु हुई है ? " प्रतितवादी क्रमांक 01 एवं 02 के दोर्षपूण काय/ उपेक्षा एवं लापरवाही के कारण सुदामा उर्फ़ शीतू सिंसह की मृत्यु हुई है। " 3) क्या सुदामा उर्फ़ शीतू सिंसह अपे मृत्यु के ठीक पूव कृ निर्ष काय से 3,00,000/- रूपये प्रतितवर्ष की आय अर्जिजत कर अपे परिरवार का पाल- पोर्षण करता था ? " ” प्रमाणिणत हीं 4) 'अ' - क्या वादीनिगण, प्रतितवादीगण से क्षतितपूर्तित प्राप्त करे के अतिJकारी है ? " हाँ " 4) 'ब' - यनिद "हाँ", तो कु ल निकता क्षतितपूर्तित एवं निकस प्रतितवादी से प्राप्त करे के अतिJकारी है ? " वादीनिगण कु ल छतितपूर्तित की रकम 12,65,000/- ( बारह लाख पैसठ हजार दो सौ ) रूपये में से प्रथम प्रभार के रूप में न्याय शुल्क अदा निकये जाे के उपरान्त बचे वाले रकम को इस निणय की कं तिPका 16 के अुसार प्रतितवादी क्रमांक 01 एवं 02 से संयुक्ततः एवं पृथक्तः प्राप्त करे के अतिJकारी है। " 5) अन्य सहायता एवं व्यय ? " निणय की कं तिPका 18 के अुसार " 5. In sum and substance, the trial Court has held that deceased Sudama alias Shitu Singh died on account of electrocution because of gross negligence and indifference of defendants No. 1 7 and 2 and awarded Rs. 12,65,000/- as compensation to the plaintiffs. 6. Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that deceased Sudama alias Shitu Singh died on account of electrocution because of gross negligence and carelessness of defendants No. 1 and 2 as it has been pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint that while the deceased was changing the old wire of his bore pump, the 11 KV wire which was running above, suddenly broke and the deceased came in its contact and got electrocuted, however, plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Rajni Singh (PW-1) has stated in her cross-examination before the Court that deceased was laying cable wire to replace the old wire of his brother’s bore pump and while laying cable wire, he came in contact of the 11 KV wire which was bent, as such, plaintiffs have failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendants No. 1 and 2 and therefore, they are not liable for payment of compensation to the plaintiffs. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court 8 in the matter of W.B. State Electricity Board and Others v. Sachin Banerjee and Others1 to buttress his submission. 7. None appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs, though served. 8. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel for respondent/defendant No. 4, would support the impugned judgment and decree and submit that though the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 have raised the ground of negligence on the part of the deceased but it has not been found proved by the trial Court as recorded in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment. He would further submit that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sachin Banerjee (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 1 (1999) 9 SCC 21 9 Discussion and Analysis on Point No. (I) :- 10. It is the case of the Appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 that deceased Sudama alias Shitu Singh died on account of his own negligence, however, the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 were under obligation to make provision for safety and electrical supply as per Section 53 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter, “the Act of 2003”), which provides as under :- “53. Provision relating to safety and electricity supply. - The Authority may, in consultation with the State Government, specify suitable measures for - (a) protecting the public (including the persons engaged in the generation, transmission or distribution or trading) from dangers arising from the generation, transmission or distribution or trading of electricity, or use of electricity supplied or installation, maintenance or use of any electric line or electrical plant; (b) eliminating or reducing the risks of personal injury to any person, or damage to property of any person or interference with use of such property; (c) prohibiting the supply or transmission of electricity except by means of a system which conforms to the specifications as may be specified; (d) giving notice in the specified form to the Appropriate Commission and the Electrical Inspector, of accidents and failures of supplies or transmission of electricity; 10 (e) keeping by a generating company or licensee the maps, plans and sections relating to supply or transmission of electricity; (f) inspection of maps, plans and sections by any person authorised by it or by Electrical Inspector or by any person on payment of specified fee; (g) specifying action to be taken in relation to any electric line or electrical plant, or any electrical appliance under the control of a consumer for the purpose of eliminating or reducing the risk of personal injury or damage to property or interference with its use.” 11. Furthermore, Section 161 of the Act of 2003 which provides for notice of accidents and inquiries, states as under :- “161. Notice of accidents and inquiries. - (1) If any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may be general or special order, direct. (2) The Appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector, or any other person appointed by it in this behalf, to inquire and report - 11 (a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, or (b) as to the manner in, and extent to, which the provisions of this Act or rules and regulations made thereunder or of any licence, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with. (3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub- section (2) shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and every person required by an Electrical Inspector be legally bound to do so within the meaning of Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code.” 12. Thus, the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 2003 make it evidently clear that the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 were under statutory obligation to take measures to ensure public safety and the accident leading to death of deceased Sudama alias Shitu Singh is a failure on their part to comply with their statutory duty. 13. The Supreme Court, in the matter of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari 2 , a case relating to death by electrocution, has 2 (2002) 2 SCC 162 12 categorically held that the electricity company will be liable for damages even without proof of negligence and observed as under :- “14. The Privy Council has observed in Quebec Rly., Light, Head and Power Co. Ltd v. Vandry3 that the company supplying electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent. Even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account of a violent wind and high-tension current found its way through the low-tension cable into the premises of the respondents was held to be not a justifiable defence. Thus, merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road.” 14. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court went a step ahead in the matter of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India4 and held as under :- “Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.” 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it was the statutory obligation of the 3 1920 AC 662 4 (1987) 1 SCC 395 13 appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 to ensure public safety in view of the provision contained under Section 53 of the Act of 2003 in which they have failed and the accident in which deceased Sudama alias Shitu Singh died on account of electrocution shows gross negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2. Moreover, the Balram Chandravanshi (PW-2) has been examined before the Court on behalf of the plaintiffs, who has remained consistent, and has clearly stated that he was near the spot when the accident happened and has refuted to the fact that the deceased died on account of his own negligence. Similarly, Anil Kumar Chandrakar (DW-1) has been examined from the defendants’ side, who was posted as Junior Engineer in the Electricity Board and he has clearly admitted that prior to the incident, he had not gone to the accident spot and is not an eye-witness of the incident. As such, in light of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shail Kumari (supra) and M.C. Mehta (supra), the trial Court, after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly held that deceased Sudama 14 alias Shitu Singh died on account of electrocution due to gross negligence of the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 and they are liable for payment of compensation to the plaintiffs. 16. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sachin Banerjee (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the present case as therein the victims died because of an illegal hooking for the purpose of theft of electricity and their Lordships had expunged the remark that the victims died because of the negligence of the State Electricity Board, however, in the instant case, negligence of the deceased could not be established. Discussion and Analysis on Point No. (II) :- ` 17. So far as the quantum of compensation granted to the plaintiffs is concerned, learned trial Court, after consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has assessed the income of deceased Sudama alias Shitu Singh as Rs. 1,19,520/- yearly on account of the minimum wage notification dated 03/04/2023 for an unskilled labourer and has 15 made a deduction of 1/3rd towards his personal income, thereby, calculating his yearly income as Rs. 79,680/- and thereafter, applied the multiplier of 15 and further granted Rs. 15,000/- as loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium, has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 12,65,200/- in favour of the plaintiffs with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 16/12/2020 till the date of its realization, which in our considered opinion, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. We hereby affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and do not find any merit in the instant appeal. 18. Accordingly, this first appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 19. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Judge Harneet