HPSEB & ORS Vs. RAKESH KUMAR ALIAS ROCKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellants/defendants (hereinafter called as "the defendants") against the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter called as "the plaintiff") assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Pauper Appeal No. 1/2006, Civil Appeal No. 54/2007/06, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 134 of 2005, dated 12.07.2007, was set-aside and suit was decreed.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that as per the plaintiff, on 22.05.1998, after School hours, the plaintiff was grazing goats near his native place. All of a sudden, two goats of the plaintiff were climbed on the roof of the house of one Shri Suresh Kumar, the plaintiff in order to retrieve his goats, climbed on the roof, but suddenly L.T. Line, just adjacent to the house of Suresh Kumar, touched the right arm of the plaintiff, consequently he suffered electric burns on his right arm. After the said accident the plaintiff was taken to the hospital at Sarkaghat, wherefrom he was referred to the Zonal Hospital, Mandi and remained admitted there upto 26.05.1998. On 27.07.1998 he was further referred to IGMC, Shimla for advance treatment, where he was remained admitted upto 24.09.1998 and his right arm from the shoulder was amputated. As per the plaintiff, Electric line was at very low height and there was negligence on the part of the defendants. Due to the said accident, the plaintiff had to abandon his School for two years and his entire future has been spoiled. Thus, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith future interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(3.) The defendants, by way of filing written statement, raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, limitation and cause of action. On merits, the defendants have submitted that despite notices served to Suresh Kumar, he has constructed a house illegally and defendants are not liable to pay any damages for loss, as caused to the plaintiff. It is also averred that 11 K.V HT line was installed much earlier than Suresh Kumar constructed his house. Thus, they prayed that the suit may be dismissed.