1 2025:CGHC:54731-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 234 of 2016 1 - Executive Engineer O And M Chhattisgarh State Head Office Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh........Defendant No. 2 , Chhattisgarh 2 - President Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.....Defendant No. 3 , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... appellant (s) versus 1 - Kishan Singh (Died) Through Legal Heirs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18- 10-2023 And 06-12-2023. 1.1 - (A) Smt. Damini Thakur W/o Late Kishan Singh Thakur Aged About 35 Years R/o Mahaveer Nagar, Dharampura, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (B) Ku. Rashmi Thakur D/o Late Kishan Singh Aged About 10 Years R/o Mahaveer Nagar, Dharampura, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Urmila, W/o Late Ramdas, Housing Board Colony Aghanpur Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.........Defendant No. 1 , District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh........Defendant No. 4 , District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For appellant (s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For State : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.01.03 15:23:51 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 10.11.2025 1. The present first appeal has been filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendant No. 2 and 3 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.02.2016 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Bastar, Place- Jagdalpur, in Civil Suit No. 20-B of 2012, whereby the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff for compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- has been decreed in his favour and liability to pay the compensation was fasten upon the defendant No. 2 to 4 jointly and severally. 2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties shown in the trial Court are being referred in the present appeal also. 3. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit for compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- on account of his permanent disability caused due to electrocution on 02.05.2006. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that on 02.05.2006 he was engaged in white washing of the house of defendant No. 1 on her instruction and working as a labourer. A high tension electricity line was by-passing above the house of the defendant No. 1. At about 2.30 pm, on 02.05.2006 while working, the plaintiff came into contact of live electric current and injured. He was immediately taken to MPM Hospital, Dhrampura and thereafter, he was shifted to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur for treatment. His both the legs below knee were amputed by which he is permanently disabled. The defendant No. 1 had assisted him by giving Rs. 10,000/-. The electricity department had also not informed the concerned parties for taking safety measures to save the person from electrocution. The plaintiff was earning Rs. 1500/ month and he claimed total Rs. 9,00,000/- towards his injuries and filed the civil suit. 4. During pendency of the present first appeal the original plaintiff Kishan Singh, who was injured in the accident, has died and his LRs have been substituted 3 as respondent No. 1-A and 1-B. 5. The defendant No. 2 had contested the claim of the plaintiff and filed his written statement, denied the plaint averment and submitted that the house in which the accident occurred, is the house No. MIG 1133 of housing board colony which is recorded in the name of J. S. Tirkey. As per Section 81-A and 82-B of the Electricity Act, 1956, there should be a gap of 3.7 meter and 2 meter horizontally and vertically between 33 KV electric line and the building. When the electricity department came to know about construction of the house, they noticed the house owner J.S. Tirkey about the same on 22.12.2005 and 22.12.2006, but ignoring the said letters, J.S. Tirkey has constructed the house under the high tension electricity line without following the instructions to maintain the gap between high tension electricity line and house as fixed under the rules. The house owner J.S. Tirkey has not been made as the defendant in the present suit and the suit would suffer from non- joinder of necessary parties. 6. The defendant No. 1 and 4 have not contested the suit and remained ex- parte throughout the proceeding. The defendant No. 3 is also not filed any written statement in the present case. Based on the pleadings of the plaintiff as well as defendant No. 2, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues:- okn fo"k; 1- D;k oknh fnukad&02-05-2006 dks yxHkx 2-30 cts izfroknh dz- 01 ds edku ds Nr ds mij iksrkbZ dj jgk Fkk] rc voS/k fo|qr izokfgr rkj ds laidZ esa vkus ls bykt ds nkSjku mlds nksuksa iSjksa dks ?kqVus ds uhps iw.kZr% vax vyx dj fn;k x;k \ 2- D;k oknh mDr nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k iw.kZr% viax gks x;k \ 3- D;k oknh izfroknhx.k ls la;qDrr% vFkok i`FkDdr% 9]00]000@& :i;sa ukS yk[k :i;s {kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 4- D;k oknh {kfriwfrZ jkf’k ij ?kVuk fnukad 02-05-2006 ls vnk;xh fnukad rd C;kt ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSa \ 5- lgk;rk ,oa vU; okn O;; \ 7. In support of his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW/1, Shohan Singh 4 (PW/2) and relied upon the documents (Ex-P/1 to P/29) which are the notice dated 19.06.2006, its reply dated 26.07.2006 and his medical treatment documents and medical bills. The defendants have examined (DW/1) S.S. Netam, Sub-Engineer, Housing Board, Jagdalpur and (DW/2) Deepak Dewangan, Assistant Engineer, CSPGCL, Janjgir-Champa and relied upon the documents (Ex-D/1) which is the application filed before the M.P. Housing Board, (Ex-D/2) is the allotment order, (Ex-D/3) is the lease agreement, (Ex- D/4) is the notice dated 22.11.2005, (Ex-D/5) is the notice dated 08.12.2005, (Ex-D/7) is the notice dated 04.02.2006, (Ex-D/8) is the statement of Urmila Jagat, (Ex-D/9) is the reply of the notice dated 26.07.2006, (Ex-D/10) is the report of accident, (Ex-D/11) is the detailed report issued by Divisional Engineer, CACB Dharmpura. 8. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit and allowed the claim of plaintiff and awarded compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- in his favour against the defendants No. 2 to 4 which is payable by them jointly and severally along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of incident till its actual payment, which is under challenge in the present first appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant, defendant No. 2 and 3 cannot be hold liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff as despite repeated notice, the house owner J.S. Tirkey constructed the house under the high tension electricity line without following the rules. The defendant No. 2 and 3 have repeatedly issued notices that if he would raise construct under the high tension line, he would be responsible for any untoward incidents, if occurred. He would also submit that the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 have also not been followed. From the report submitted by the department, the negligence was on the part of plaintiff as well as the defendant No. 1 and without any safety measure, the defendant No. 1 permitted the plaintiff to work there and the plaintiff was negligently 5 performing his work by which he came into contact with electric current. He would further submit that J.S. Tirkey is responsible to pay the compensation as he constructed the house, despite giving notices to him and violated the Rules in which the specific distance between the high tension electric line and house is to be maintained by the parties. However, a very less gap was there between the house and high tension electric line and engage the plaintiff in white washing work and even if J.S. Tirkey is not been responsible, it is defendant No. 1, who should be held responsible to pay the compensation but definitely not the defendant No. 2 and 3 as there is no negligence in their part in the accident. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and impugned judgment holding the defendant No. 2 and 3 liable to pay compensation may be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1-a and 1-b supported the impugned judgment and decree and submitted that after due appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly assessed the compensation and passed the judgment and decree which does not suffers from any perversity or illegality and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/ State would submit that it is the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 3 as the plaintiff has injured by the high tension electricity line of defendant No. 2 and 3 and the defendant No. 1 was in occupation of the house where the incident occurred. He would submit that under the facts and circumstances of the case, no liability can be fasten upon the defendant No. 4/ State. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 13. In the present case, injury caused to the plaintiff by the electrocution could not be disputed by the parties. The question for consideration would be who 6 would be held liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff. It also could not be disputed that, on 02/05/2006 while working as white washer in the house of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff got injured by electrocution from the high tension electricity line over the house of defendant No. 1. By the said accident, the plaintiff has permanently disabled by his both the legs as his both the legs below knee were amputed and his disability was considered as 100%. Dealing with the negligence of the parties, the learned trial Court has considered the judgment of Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukharjee & Ors., 2009 (9) SCC 221. The learned trial Court has also taken note of para 135 and 136 which is necessary to notice hear, which is as under:- 135. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. (See Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 24th Edn. 2002, at pp. 441-42) Negligence means “either subjectively a careless state of mind, or objectively careless conduct. It is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. In determining whether negligence exists in a particular case, all the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances have to be taken into account”. 136. Negligence is strictly nonfeasance and not malfeasance. It is the omission to do what the law requires, or the failure to do anything in a manner prescribed by law. It is the act which can be treated as negligence without any proof as to the surrounding circumstances, because it is in violation of statute or ordinance or is contrary to the dictates of ordinary prudence. 14. The learned trial Court has further relied upon the judgment of M.S. Garewal Vs. Deep Chand Sude, 2001 (8) SCC 151, Poonam Verma Vs. Aswin Patel, 1996 (4) SCC 332, Ramesh Kumar Nayak Vs. Union of India, 1995 ACJ 443 and Dattak and another vs. Imrat Lal and Others, 1998 (1) Civ. LJ 670 and in which it has been held that:- “negligence in common parlance means and implies “failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person”. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or 7 inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware that of the results which may follow from his act. It is want of attention and doing of something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do. “Negligence” by itself means and implies a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow”. 15. The plaintiff in his evidence has stated that there was no notice affixed near the place of incident by the electricity department. He also did not know about any notice to J.S. Tirkey with respect to the distance between high tension line and house. He also stated that he was not noticed by the electricity department to stop his work and he did not know as to whether any notice was given to J.S. Tirkey or not and since, the plaintiff was totally unaware of the consequences of work near the 33 KV electricity line, he was not held contributory or composite negligent in the accident. 16. The defendant No. 2 has taken a defence that they have issued notices to the owner of the house J.S. Tirkey which is (Ex-D/4 to D/7). From perusal of these notices, it reveals that it is the notice to stop the construction work from the upper part of the house so that the probable accident would be avoided. It is the case of defendant No. 2 itself that J.S. Tirkey has assured that if any untoward accident would be caused, he would be liable for the same. From the document Ex-P/11, the detailed report submitted by Sub-Engineer, it is found that the horizontal and vertical clearance between 33 KV electricity line and the terrace of the subject house was very low. As per the Indian Electricity Act, 1956, there should be minimum distance of 3.7 meter and 2 meter horizontally or vertically between 33 KV electricity line and building but the house of J.S. Tirkey was not of that standard. The DW/2 Deepak Dewangan has admitted in his evidence that the 33 KV electricity line should be in the height of 11 meter from the ground level but it has not been disclosed in his written statement. The distance between ground level and electricity line also not mentioned in the document (Ex-D/11) and it is only 8 stated that the horizontal and vertical clearance was very low. Except the notice, the defendant No. 2 did not produce any evidence that they tried to stop the construction of the house of J.S. Tirkey. The another defence taken by the defendant No. 2 that the Rule 3 of Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 had not been followed, and the licensee is having right to stop the construction work of such person who is violating the rules of 2006 by filing appropriate application before District Judge, Superintendent of Police or any other authority. Only issuing a notice to the house owner or permitting him to construct the house after assuring that he would be liable for any untoward accident would not sufficient to take proper course for stopping of any untoward incident. 17. The learned trial Court has further relief upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, 1996 (3) SCC 212 and 2002 (2) SCC 162, M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari & Ors. to consider the strict liability of the electricity board in a case of electrocution. In para 8 of Shail Kumari Case (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “8. Even assuming that all safety measure had 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 undertaking. The basis of such liabilities is 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 is differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in hits way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions.” 18. considering the evidence led by the parties as well as the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned trial Court has held the defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff jointly and severally. 9 19. The another ground raised by the plaintiff would be the quantum of compensation awarded to the plaintiff. After an elaborate discussion, the learned trial Court based on the various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and probability of revival of health condition of the injured, his family background, dependents upon the injured, source of his income, and future prospects, the learned trial Court has granted Rs. 9,00,000/- as compensation to the plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that both the legs of the plaintiff below knee were amputed and he was 100 % physically disabled. His 100% physical disability would made him disentitle to earn anything completely as he could not work as white washer without having limbs and he could not perform his work in further also. In this condition and there is no possibility of any improvement and considering the case of Smt Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, the learned trial Court assessed the compensation and awarded Rs. 9,00,000/- to the plaintiff, in which this court does not find any perversity. 20. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, and after gone through the judgment passed by learned trial Court, it is quite vivid that the judgment passed by learned trial Court, is based on proper appreciation of evidence as well as law applicable to it, and does not suffers from any perversity or illegality. 21. Accordingly, the first appeal filed by the appellant is liable to and hereby dismissed. 22. The appellate decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika