(1.) Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2006, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.8 of 2006, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No.70/2002, whereby suit for compensation having been filed by respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') was dismissed.
(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit as an indigent person under Order 33 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for compensation amounting to Rs.two lacs alongwith interest @ 8% against appellantdefendant averring therein that on 16.2.1998, when he was sleeping on the roof of his house at village Jarol, then all of sudden at 9.00 A.M. there was a dazzling spark and a big mass of fire got discharged from the electric wire, passing above the house of the plaintiff, and the said mass of the fire engulfed the plaintiff, as a result of which his body was badly burnt. Plaintiff further averred that in the aforesaid incident he was suffered injury to his right arm, fingers and right leg. It is further averred by the plaintiff in the plaint that his muscles from left leg were removed and planted on the right side of the whole body. Plaintiff further averred that due to electrocution, he was unable to walk, sit and sleep properly and suffered pain continuously. Plaint further reveals that after aforesaid incident, plaintiff became unconscious and was taken to Primary Health Centre, Jarol and thereafter to Civil Hospital, Sundernagar, but doctors at Civil Hospital, Sundernagar referred the plaintiff to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted for 3½ months. Plaintiff further alleged that after having taking treatment from PGI, Chandigarh, he again remained as indoor patient at Civil Hospital, Sundernagar for 3½ months and in this process, his entire savings were spent on his treatment. Plaintiff also claimed that he was accompanied by two attendants and was given three bottles of blood and 500 bottles of glucose and in this process he spent more than Rs.two lacs on his treatment. Plaint further suggests that at the time of accident, plaintiff was a qualified carpenter and used to earn Rs.200/- per day, but by the said accident he has now been deprived of doing any physical work. It is further averred in the plaint that there is a history of longevity in his family, since his father is still alive and his grand-father expired at the age of 90 years and at that relevant time he was 25 years of age. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.two lacs with interest from the defendants.
(3.) Defendants, by way of detailed written statement refuted the version having been put forth by the plaintiff on the ground of maintainability, estoppel, cause of action, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and lack of jurisdiction. Apart from above, defendant also contested the case of the plaintiff on merits by stating that he is not a poor person, rather, he has handsome income from the land and other sources. Defendants admitted that they have installed 33 KV H.T. line, which passes through village Jarol in the year 1965, and the same is well maintained having rail polls of iron and none of the house come underneath the line at the time of its erection. Defendants further claimed that no accident from electricity wires has taken place and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for any compensation. Defendants further averred that no complaint, whatsoever, was received by the staff of the defendants nor any FIR was lodged. Defendants further claimed that at the time of alleged accident, plaintiff was not owner of house at Jarol, rather he had one small khokha from where he used to sell beedies, cigrates and toffees etc. Defendants further claimed that there was no house underneath the electricity line, as claimed by the plaintiff, and if any person constructs anything under the line then that person himself is responsible for the same and no compensation, if any, can be claimed against the defendants. In nutshell, defendants stated that since there was no accident, as alleged by the plaintiff, there is no question of negligence on the part of defendants and plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation. Defendants further stated that they have maintained the electricity line and there was neither complaint of loose sagging of line nor it ever touched the ground and the line was erected as per law. It is further alleged by the defendants that requisite height as well as vertical and horizontal distances are maintained from the ground level as well as from the houses. In the aforesaid background, defendants sought dismissal of the suit.