Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) APPELLANT Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short, 'JdWNL') has laid this first appeal under Section 96 CPC to question the legality and propriety of judgment and decree dated 8th of April 2015 passed by Addl. District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit filed by respondent for compensation under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (for short, 'Act') and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,52,148/ - with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit.
(2.) THE bare necessary facts, for the purpose of this appeal, are that respondent -plaintiffs filed a claim petition before the learned Addl. District Judge, Raisinghnagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'), inter -alia, on the ground that husband of first respondent, Umed Singh, was in employment of fifth respondent as agricultural labourer. It is further averred that on fateful day of 25th December 2008 during night hours when Umed Singh visited agricultural field of fifth respondent and made an attempt to start electric motor installed in the field near transformer, he received electric shock. The gravity and magnitude of the electric shock was so high that Umed Singh electrocuted instantaneously and succumbed on the spot. Alleging in the claim that at the time of his death, Umed Singh was 26 years old and his monthly income was Rs. 8,000/ -, the respondent -plaintiffs quantified the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 54,94,000/ -. The cause of accident, which resulted in death of Umed Singh, was attributed to the appellant precisely on the ground that transformer and other electric equipments are required to be maintained by appellant JdWNL and it is also expected to take all safety measures to prevent any mishap including loss of human life. In the claim petition, besides appellant, fifth respondent Ramswaroop was also arrayed as defendant. After service of summons, none appeared for the fifth respondent; therefore, the learned trial Court proceeded ex -parte. The appellant JdVVNL, appeared before the learned trial Court and contested the claim of respondent -plaintiffs. In the written statement, appellant has denied all the allegations contained in the plaint. The appellant has also averred in the return that transformer was placed at the site but the work for connecting it with the main line through wires was underway and in the interregnum it was connected for supplying of electricity. The appellant has also pleaded ignorance about flowing of current from the pole of transformer or its girder. It is also averred in the written statement that information about receiving electric shock by Umed Singh was never divulged to the department nor the same was conveyed to the person in whose name electric connection existed. As regards the income of Umed Singh, appellant has made a categorical statement that there is no proof to this effect and therefore amount quantified is based on mere surmises. Attributing culpable negligence on the part of deceased, appellant prayed that respondent plaintiffs are not entitled for any compensation. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, framed two issues for determination. For substantiating their claim, respondent -plaintiffs examined four witnesses including first respondent Smt. Santosh and Dr. Taj Kumar Sharma.
(3.) IN counter, appellant tendered affidavits of DW 1 Rajesh Prasad Meena, DW 2 Tarachand Saharan and also produced Accident Electrical Report Ex. A/1. However, DW 1 Rajesh Prasad Meena after tendering his affidavit did not appear for cross -examination and only other witness DW 2 Tarachand Saharan appeared for cross -examination.;