PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. Vs. VARINDER KAUR AND ORS.
LAWS(P&H)-2014-8-310
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 01,2014

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Varinder Kaur And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The present appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) rejecting the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2011 passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs with interest @ 6% per annum in regard to death of Hukam Singh. Varinder Kaur and others, respondents No. 1 to 5 (plaintiffs), (the legal heirs of deceased Hukam Singh) filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 50 lacs as Hukam Singh came in contact with live electric wire of pole of street light and got electrocuted on 06.07.2006. Hukam Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Phase VI, Mohali, then to PGI, Chandigarh and was declared dead in PGI. Post-mortem on the dead body of Hukam Singh was conducted. Hukam Singh was working as S.I.R. in Punjab Engineering College (Deemed. University), Chandigarh and drawing salary of Rs. 16,800/- per month. The deceased was to be promoted as Foreman after about 2 years and earn more than Rs. 25,000/- per month. The respondents claimed an amount of Rs. 50 lacs towards compensation.
(2.) The appellants (defendants No. 1 & 2) filed the written statement seriously contesting the claim of the respondents (plaintiffs) and denied their liability to pay any compensation. It was alleged that respondent No. 6 (defendant No. 3) undertook to carry out the maintenance of street lights of poles exclusively meant for street lighting system as per provisions of Indian Electricity Act and Rules, therefore, to indemnify the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short 'the Board') in case of any accident occurring as a result of maintenance of street lighting system in the area of Municipal Council, Mohali (in short 'the Council'). They have challenged the maintainability of the suit in the present form and suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
(3.) Respondent No. 6 (defendant No. 3) did not put in appearance to counter the case of private respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.