IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.12.2009
1]
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another
... Appellants
Versus
Sant Singh and another
...Respondents
RSA No.4693 of 2009 (O&M)
2]
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another
... Appellants
Versus
Sant Singh and another
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellants.
Sabina, J.
Vide this judgment, the above mentioned two appeals i.e. RSA
No.4692 of 2009 tilted Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another Vs. Sant
Singh and another and RSA No.4692 of 2009 titled as Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd. and another Vs. Sant Singh and another would be disposed of
as they have arisen out of one suit.
The plaintiffs had filed a suit for damages and for recovery of
Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of Rajinder Singh and
Rs.30,000/- in lieu of death of two buffalos). The suit of the plaintiffs was
decreed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated
18.04.2007 for recovery of Rs.1 lac as damages along with interest at the rate
of 8% per annum and Rs.29,000/- on account of death of two buffalos. The
plaintiffs as well as defendant-appellant filed separate appeals against the said
RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M) 2
judgment and decree. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the
appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed vide separate judgment and decree
dated 25.8.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, Fast Tract
Court. The damages were enhanced from Rs.1 lac to Rs.2 lac by the learned
Additional District Judge, Patiala. Hence, the present appeals by defendants
No.3 and 4
The facts of the case as noticed by the trial Court in paras 2 to 4
of its judgment read as under:-
“2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are that the
plaintiffs are parents of Rajinder Singh who along with
his two buffalos died on 6.7.2000 due to electric shock/
electric current. The brief facts are that on 6.7.2000 at
about 3 PM Rajinder Singh left his house along with
buffalos to his fields. When the buffalos reached near the
Railway Crossing of Damanheri two buffalos were inside
the water pond (Chappar) and started drinking water.
Both these buffalos fell down in the Chappar after
shivering. Rajinder Singh presumed that buffalos might
have some problem he just to save the buffalos also went
inside the Chappar, he received electric shock from the
hanging telephone wires, which were hanging after
touching electric wire through which electric current
passed and the same passed into telephone wires, one of
the corner of which were lying in the pond/Chappar.
Rajinder Singh died their buffalos also died there. Sardar
Singh, Bant Singh and plaintiff no.1 reached immediately
at the spot and removed buffalos and Rajinder Singh from
the Chappar. It is further averred that Rajinder Singh and
his buffalos died due to the negligence of technical staff
of defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 and due to
improper maintenance of electric wires and telephone
wires meant for supply electricity and telephone service,
moreover there was no regular checking and maintenance
RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M) 3by the staff of defendants as required under the Indian
Electricity Rules and Telephone Rules near the place of
present accident. It is further averred that at the time of
death Rajinder Singh was aged about 27 years and was
unmarried, he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. from the
business of Diary farming and agricultural business. The
plaintiff being parents of Rajinder Singh were dependent
upon his income. Plaintiffs also suffered loss of
Rs.30,000/- due to the death of two buffalos, the price has
been assessed by senior veterinary officer who conducted
post mortem examination of buffalos. It is further averred
that the plaintiffs made representation to the defendants
through their Advocate S.Subeg Singh Sandhu but the
defendants made one or the other excuse and has not paid
any compensation to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also
lodged report with the police of P.S. City Rajpura. The
police after making investigation has registered case U/S
304-A, 428 IPC against the concerned officer of
defendants . Hence, the present suit.
3. Upon notice defendants No.1 & 2/PSEB put in
appearance through counsel and filed written statement in
which denied all the averments of the plaint besides
taking preliminary objections that the suit of the plaintiffs
is time barred; the suit is bad due to non-joinder of
necessary parties; the plaintiffs have no cause of action
against the answering defendants to file the present suit
and the plaintiffs have not complied with the provisions
of the Indian Electricity Act. On merits, all the averments
of the plaint were specifically denied. It was denied that
DDR was lodged by Shri Sant Singh son of Tarlok Singh
on 6.7.2000 in which he had alleged that incident had
took place due to the negligence of the telephone
department and the electricity department. The
allegations of the DDR were totally denied. It was further
submitted that the correct facts of this case are that the
telephone lines had broken from one end and had fallen
RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M) 4on the electricity wires of the Board. The other end of
telephone lines had fallen in the Pond (Chappar). No
electricity line of the Board had broken. The Electricity
Board has only to right and authority to maintain the
electricity lines and not the telephonic lines of the Union
of India. The telephonic department/Union of India are
responsible for maintaining their telephonic lines. In any
case if any telephonic lines had fallen on the electricity
lines as has taken place in the present case, then the entire
liability is of telephone department and not of P.S.EB. It
was further denied if deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- at
the time of his death and further submitted that in fact
said Rajinder Singh was un-employed and was not doing
any work at that time and he was depended upon his
parents and other family members. He was not doing
agricultural work or diary farm business and lastly it was
prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with
costs.
4. Upon notice, counsel put in appearance on behalf of
defendants No.3 and 4 (BSNL) and filed a separate
written statement in which took preliminary objections
that the present suit is not maintainable in the present
form and that the plaintiff have not come to the court with
clean hands. On merits, all the averments of the plaint
were specifically denied. It was further submitted that no
FIR/DDR in respect of the alleged incident was ever
lodged by the plaintiff not any intimation/notice was ever
sent to the defendants No.3 and 4 nor any complaint
regarding the alleged incident was ever lodged. It was
further submitted that the wire of the BSNL always on the
right hand side of the Board and the wire of the Elecy.
Board are always on the left hand side of the road, but the
same are never in any case lying over and above on each
side of the road, but in the rarest of rarest case, when in
case of any emergency, when the wires crosses each other
at a crossing (Chauraha) then the wires of the BSNL are
RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M) 5always at a lower position i.e. at a height of 8 feet and the
wires of the PSEB at a height of 12 feet and more then it
and the wires of the BSNL always remain below the wires
of the PSEB. It was further submitted that neither
Rajinder Singh, nor his buffalos died due to the fault on
the part of the defendants No.3 and 4 and neither the
persons mentioned as alleged witnesses, were never
present at the place of alleged occurrence. It was further
submitted that the matter was never reported to the
Panchayat, nor any resolution to this effect was passed by
the Gram Panchayat, in the presence of the B.D.& P.O.
nor the same was ever sent to the concerned Police
Station and lastly it was prayed that the suit of the
plaintiffs may kindly be dismissed with costs.”
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed
by the learned lower Court:-
1. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary
parties? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, if so its
effect? OPP
4. Relief.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the
opinion that the instant appeals are devoid of any merit and deserve dismissal.
There is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for
the appellant that the wires affixed by the appellants were at the height of 8
feet from the road whereas wires affixed by Punjab State Electricity Board
were at the height of 12 feet or more from the road. The appellants have failed
to substantiate this plea by leading cogent evidence that in fact, the wires
affixed by electricity board had broken and fallen on the wires affixed by the
appellant. Rather the finding of both the courts below after appreciating the
RSA No.4692 of 2009 (O&M) 6
evidence led by the parties on record is that the wires affixed by the appellant
had broken and had fallen on the wires of affixed by the electricity board and
due to this reason, Rajinder Singh had died and two buffalos belonging to the
plaintiffs had also died. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered with in
appeal by this Court.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration in these
appeals. Accordingly both the appeals stand dismissed.
[ Sabina ]
Judge
18.12.2009
sd