PRAKASH TATIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 2.6.2000 by which the trial court awarded damages total amounting to Rs. 1,65,500/ - to the plaintiffs. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs who were the legal representatives of deceased Hira Lal filed the present suit alleging that defendant No.1 appellant (earlier Raj. State Electricity Board) is liable for the damages caused due to the death of deceased Hira Lal at the age of 30 years on 3rd Oct., 1996. According to plaintiffs the defendant No. 2 respondent No.8 was the helper employed with the appellant. There was an electric connection from the well of the plaintiffs ruining towards the well of Shankar Lal defendant No. 3 and there were five electric poles in the between the plaintiffs well and well of the Shankar Lal. The electric connection of Shankar Lal was disconnected since last few years. According to plaintiffs the electric line from plaintiffs well to the defendant No. 3's well left carelessly by the appellant/ and appellant's employees. It is alleged in the plaint that in between 8 AM to 4 PM the defendant No. 1 who was the employee of the appellant connected the wire line of the well of the defendant No.3 and the electric supply was started. It is stated that this was done without obtaining even order from the competent officer. The connection was allowed even when the electric wires were lying in the field,' that too, connected with the water of the field. On 3rd Oct., 1996 at about 6 AM the deceased Hira Lal was irrigating his field and he met with this accident of coming into contact with the live electric wire resulting into the death of Hira Lal. The claimants claimed in total Rs. 15,58,500 from the defendants on the ground that defendant No. 2 was in employment of the appellant -defendant No. 1 and because of the grave negligence on the part of the employees, Hira Lal died unfortunately at the age of 30 years leaving behind his father, mother, wife, minor daughter and son. A separate reply was filed by the defendant -appellant No. 1 wherein the appellant submitted that they are not aware how the above accident occurred and it was stated that the employees of the defendant No. 1 have not connected the wires but defendants No.2 and 3 by collusion started the electric connection, which was not in the knowledge of the defendant No. 1
(3.) THE defendants No.2 and 3 filed joint written statement and it was stated that defendant No.2 and 3 have not committed any negligence. It was submitted by the defendants No.2 and 3 that defendants No.2 never commited any negligence in his service and defendants No.2 and 3 were impleaded as party because of enimity. It is also submitted that a case was registered against the defendant No.2 and 3 Under Sections 337, 304 -A and 379 I.P.C. read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. In that case the defendants No.2 and 3 were acquitted on 15th May, 1998. The trial court, after framing issues, recorded the evidence of PW -1 Bherulal PW -2 Gordhanlal and PW -3 Mangilal whereas defendants produced witnesses DW -1 Sujal, DW -2 Bhupendra Kumar Chatar and DW -3 Ramchandra. After hearing arguments and examining the evidence produced by the parties, the trial court, while deciding issue No. 1, held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the negligence of Shankar Lal defendant No. 3 It was also relevant to mention here that there is no serious dispute about the fact that deceased Hira Lal died because of the flow of the electric connection as alleged by the plaintiffs. The trial court, while deciding issue No. 2 on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, held that plaintiffs were entitled for Rs. 1,65,500/ - as damages.;