Allahabad High Court
Executive Engineer Electricity Supply ... vs Shaukat Ali And 3 Ors. on 29 January, 2020
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 566 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Shaukat Ali And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 570 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Akbar Ali And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 564 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Smt. Amna Khatoon And 7 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Surendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 562 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply
Respondent :- Sehraj And 8 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Surendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 578 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Smt. Nazma Begum And 8 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 571 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Smt. Ayasha And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Surendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 561 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply
Respondent :- Lal Khan And 7 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Surendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Shakeel Ahmad Ansari
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 572 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Jaimud Khan And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 576 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Wazid And 8 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 569 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Waseem Khan And 12 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Surendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Shakeel Ahmad Ansari
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 568 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Rasheed Khan And 5 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 565 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Roshan Khan And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 580 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Akbar Ali And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 579 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Naimud Khan And 8 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 575 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Akbar Khan And 8 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 574 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Smt. Jauhara And 6 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 573 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Smt. Shameem Jahan And 8 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 577 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Smt. Raheema And 8 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Trivedi,Surendra Pal Singh
ALONG WITH
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 567 of 2008
Appellant :- Executive Engineer Electricity Supply Bahraich
Respondent :- Smt. Amna Khatoon And 8 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh
*****
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
These are a batch of 19 appeals which arise out of an unfortunate and tragic incident wherein a marriage party while returning in a bus, after the wedding and on the fateful day, while the bus reached Gram Mauji Purwa, at the relevant time a high-tension electricity wire was hanging loose which touched the bus in question and a high intensity electric current spread in the bus and in the aforesaid accident, 19 persons lost their lives and 4 persons suffered injuries. It is in respect of the aforesaid accident, which occurred on 25.05.2002 that various claim petitions were filed before the MACT/Additional District Judge, (E.C. Act), Bahraich, which were decided by the respective awards passed in respective claim petitions against which these appeals have been preferred.
Since, common questions of both law and fact were involved, accordingly, the Tribunal decided various claim petitions and awarded the compensation to the respective claimants. While deciding the respective claim petitions, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident which occasioned death of 19 persons and injured 4 persons was an outcome of negligence of both the bus driver as well as Power Corporation and after considering the evidence it apportioned the liability of 80% on the Power Corporation and 20% on the owner of the bus as well as the Insurance Company as the bus was duly insured and it had all the requisite documents including the permit, licence and policy.
The Power Corporation being aggrieved against the awards passed in respective claim petitions have preferred the appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award passed in the various claim petitions.
Since, the learned counsel for the Power Corporation has assailed the finding on Issue No.1 in all the cases so far as it relates to holding the Power Corporation to be negligent and also apportionment of the liability, which is questioned in all the appeals. So far as the quantum of the award is concerned, the same has not been challenged nor any of the claimants have preferred any cross-appeals or cross-objections.
Since, the only issue to be considered by this Court is regarding the validity and sustainability of the Issue No.1 relating to the negligence and apportionment of the liability, hence, this Court is not referring to the facts of each separate claim petitions, giving rise to the appeals, separately.
The facts are common to all the cases and has been noted from the leading appeal i.e. F.A.F.O. No.566/2008 which arises out of Claim Petition No.105/70/2002. This common judgment shall operate and shall govern all the above appeals.
To put the controversy in a perspective, shorn of all unnecessary details, it is to be noted that on 25.05.2002, a marriage party was travelling in a Bus bearing No.UHI-1688. The bus was jointly owned by Smt. Israt Jahan and Bano Begum (the respondents No.2 and 3 herein) and the said bus was duly insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No.4 herein). It was the case of the claimants that after attending the marriage ceremony, the marriage-party was returning and reached Gram Mauji Purwa at around 08:00 PM, a high-tension electricity wire was hanging loose and while the bus tried to pass under it, the high-tension electricity wire touched the bus and a high intensity electric current spread and flowed in the bus, as a result 19 persons died and 4 persons sustained injuries. It is in this respect that Shaukat Ali (claimant in the present appeal) preferred Claim Petition No.105/70/2002.
The aforesaid claim petition was contested, both by the owners and the Insurance Company as well as by the Power Corporation. The owners and the Insurance Company had taken the defence that it was the responsibility of the Power Corporation to ensure that the high-tension power lines are maintained properly. It was stated that the Rules and Regulations applicable for the maintenance and upkeep of the aforesaid high-tension power lines were not followed by the Power Corporation, as a result, they were hanging loose and for the said reason, it touched the bus and accordingly the entire liability vested with the Power Corporation as it was solely on account of their negligence that the said accident occurred.
On the other hand, the Power Corporation took the defence that the negligence was solely on the bus-driver. Since, as per the version of the bus-driver himself he admitted that while returning from the marriage, he had seen that the high-tension power line was hanging loose and he had stopped the bus. He had informed the passengers/occupants that the bus will not be able to pass through, however, upon the pressure mounted by the passengers of the bus, who were part of the marriage-party, forced the bus-driver to move the bus and pass under it and in order to facilitate the bus, the persons belonging to the marriage-party took the help of a wooden bamboo stick to lift the sagging power line and it is during this period when the bus was moving under the power lines that it touched the goods which were loaded on the roof of the bus, which caused the accident. Thus, the defence raised by the Power Corporation was that it was not so much on account of sagging power lines that the accident occurred, but it was largely on account of the negligence of the bus-driver, who despite having noticed the sagging power lines, yet under pressure from the occupants of the bus, attempted to drive the bus coupled with the fact that the goods were loaded which reduced the gap between the bus and the sagging power lines even more and it indicated the sheer negligence of the bus-driver, who was responsible for the accident and consequently the liability ought to have been fastened on the owner/insurance company.
Since, the facts and the defence of the respective parties were similar in all the claim petitions, the Tribunal framed four issues. While dealing with the Issues No.2 and 3, the Tribunal found that the driver of the bus had a valid and effective driving licence and that the bus was also duly insured and all its documents were in order.
The main contentious issue was Issue No.1 regarding the negligence and who was responsible for the aforesaid accident and to what extent.
After considering the evidence including the statements of the eye-witnesses, the witnesses examined by the Power Corporation, the Tribunal concluded that the accident was an outcome of the negligence wherein both the bus-driver as well as the Power Corporation were responsible. The Tribunal also concluded that the Power Corporation was largely responsible and apportioned 80% of the liability of the award whereas 20% of the liability was fastened on the owner/Insurance Company.
It is to be noted that neither the claimants nor the owners of the bus/Insurance Company has filed any cross appeal or cross-objections against any finding returned by the Tribunal. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the aforesaid appeals have been preferred by the Power Corporation.
It will also be relevant to note that Smt. Ishrat Jahan, who is a party in all the appeals, who is one of the joint owners of the bus in question expired during pendency of the proceedings. However, there has been no application seeking her substitution. At the same time, it is to be noted that other joint owner namely Bano Begum is already on record and the Insurance Company which insured the bus in question is also contesting the proceedings. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court finds that merely because one of the joint owner of the bus has expired while her rights are duly represented both by the other joint owner Smt. Bano Begum as well as Insurance Company. Thus, the same shall not effect the merits of the appeal.
So also, in F.A.F.O. No.574/2008, Smt. Jauhara (the mother of the deceased) expired. However, she is survived by the wife and children of the deceased, hence, on her death, no abatement shall take place as the rights are duly represented by the wife and children of the deceased.
Similar is the situation in F.A.F.O. No.577/2008 wherein Smt. Puttan again the mother of the deceased expired but her estate has been duly represented through the wife and the children of the deceased. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, their death shall not effect on the merits of the appeal.
The Court has heard Shri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Surendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. None had put in appearance on behalf of the owner. Accordingly, all the aforesaid appeals were heard in their absence.
The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the award is, twofold.
(i) It has been submitted that once the driver of the bus had seen the loose hanging high-tension electricity wire, it ought not to have attempted to go under it. It is not a case where the driver was not aware, but the driver as well as all the occupants of the bus were aware regarding the high-tension electricity wire and despite the aforesaid, they attempted to go under it knowing fully well the danger involved coupled with the fact that large number of goods including big boxes, cycle, etc., were also loaded on the roof of the bus which made the gap between the bus and the wire even less. In the aforesaid circumstances, the driver ought not to have proceeded further and by ignoring the aforesaid danger, the driver of the bus deliberately put the passengers and himself at risk and the Tribunal was not justified in holding the Power Corporation to be negligent.
(ii) It has further been submitted that even assuming for the sake of the arguments, though not conceded, that the Power Corporation was at some fault, but nevertheless in the facts and circumstances, the negligence was largely of the bus driver, consequently large portion of the liability ought to have been fastened on the bus owners and not on the Power Corporation.
Per contra, Shri Surendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently contended that the Insurance Company was primarily at fault. It has been submitted that under the Rules and Regulations governing the maintenance of high-tension power lines, the minimum height is prescribed, which was not maintained by the Power Corporation. It was also submitted that the plea raised by the Power Corporation that over a period of time, the Public Works Department had raised the level of the road which had reduced the prescribed height is also not tenable inasmuch as the roads are maintained from time to time and so is the maintenance required by the Power Corporation. No road is made overnight, so that the Power Corporation would not have known and that too the height of the road had increased so much, overnight, which caused the accident and which left and took the Power Corporation by surprise.
It was also submitted that the Power Corporation is also required to encase the high-tension power lines within a mesh so that in case if any of the power line loosen or drop, the same is within the mesh and it would cut off the electricity supply. However, such measures were not taken and, therefore, the Power Corporation cannot plead from being absolved from their liability and looking into the nature of the activity, it was the Power Corporation, who is largely responsible and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the negligence as well as apportioned the liability appropriately which requires no interference and all the aforesaid appeals are liable to be dismissed.
It has also been submitted that so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it has honoured its liability and paid the outstanding as per its share of the award to the claimants concerned.
The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the record.
So far as the facts are concerned, the same are largely not disputed. The manner in which the accident occurred is also not disputed.
The only issue raised in the instant appeals is in respect of whether the Power Corporation was negligent at all and if so to what extent it could be made liable?
It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Court has perused the material available on the record including the evidence led before the Tribunal. It would be seen from the record that the driver of the bus had clearly stated that he had seen the overhanging electricity wire and had stopped the bus. He had also informed that the bus may not go under it. However, the occupants of the bus and passengers, who were of a marriage-party had threatened the bus-driver and he under the aforesaid circumstances attempted to take the bus under the said wire while the brother of the groom and others were helping in lifting the high-tension power lines with the help of wooden bamboo poles.
The record also indicates that the Power Corporation also made an enquiry through its Executive Engineer, namely, Dinesh Chandra Trivedi. As per the said report of Shri Trivedi, it was found that the bus was loaded with boxes, cycle and other items which had reduced the gap between the bus and the overhanging wire. It was deposed by Shri Trivedi that had the bus not attempted to go under the wire or even if at all the bus had to go but the goods could have been removed from the roof of the bus, the accident would not have occurred.
From the perusal of the record, the Court finds that both the Power Corporation as well as the owner/Insurance Company have been playing the blame-game and passing the buck to the other. However, from the record, it further reveals that the witness on behalf of the Power Corporation was examined and during his cross-examination, he stated that as per the prescribed norms, the minimum distance between the road and the high-tension electricity wire ought to be 18 ft., whereas the distance was only 14 ft. Though the explanation given by the witnesses of the Power Corporation that the distance was reduced on account of re-layering of the road. However, upon perusal of the evidence, this Court finds that the explanation is not sufficient.
As per the Rules prescribed under the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, Rule 77 prescribes that no conductor of an overhead line, including service lines, erected across a street shall at any part thereof be at a height of less than 6.1 metres for high voltage lines.
Thus, there is no denial of the fact that as per the prescribed norms, the minimum height ought to have been 6.1 metres. Since, the Power Corporation is carrying out the activity regarding the generation and transmission of power, which is a monopolistic activity and is inherently hazardous, hence, it was incumbent on the Power Corporation to be vigilant and responsible to ensure that the high-tension power lines, which go across roads, do abide by the minimum prescribed height as per the Rules.
It would be relevant to mention that Rule 77 prescribes the minimum height but it does not prescribe what would be the upper limit. The Power Corporation knowing fully well that its power lines are going across street roads which are part of State Highways and arterial roads where there is a traffic on day to day basis and such roads (as part of the responsibility of the Department of the Public Works) are re-layered to make and keep them in a motorable condition.
Thus, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Public Works Department had raised level of the road does not come to any rescue since this work of re-layering of the roads could not have been done overnight and moreover once this activity is taken on time to time basis, it ought to have been in the knowledge of the Power Corporation to take adequate measures to maintain the minimum prescribed height. It is also the responsibility of the Power Corporation to ensure that its power lines are properly maintained and had this been done, the increase in the height in the road definitely would be in the knowledge of the Power Corporation and it could have taken appropriate measures. Moreover, the mere fact that the power line had loosened and was sagging which had reduced the height is also something which is in the natural course of the activity undertaken by the Power Corporation, hence, it cannot be said that loosening or sagging of high-tension power line is uncommon occurrence, therefore, it cannot be said that the Power Corporation was vigilant in performing its duties.
In order to further buttress his submissions, the learned counsel for the Power Corporation submitted that the bus-driver had already seen the sagging the high-tension power line and had stopped. He had also noticed that there were goods and boxes loaded on the roof of the bus and as such any prudent man would have removed the goods from the bus and then attempted to go under it. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also does not find favour with this Court for the reason that where the roads are used for vehicular traffic which includes the buses and trucks, it is obvious that if transport vehicles are being plied, they would be carrying the passengers and goods as the case may be. Such vehicles as per their capacity to load the goods continuously ply on the roads and it is a common and day to day occurrence and obviously had to be in the general knowledge of the officials of the Power Corporation.
From the record, it is clear that the minimum prescribed height of the power lines were not maintained inasmuch as overhanging wire was only at 14 ft., whereas, minimum, it ought to have been 18 ft. Had the Power Corporation being vigilant, it could have rectified the aforesaid drooping wires coupled with the fact that the buses and trucks plying on the road with goods and passengers, have a particular height and it is for the said reason that the Electricity Rules also prescribe the minimum height and not the upper limit. The Power Corporation ought to have noticed the density of traffic and considering the over all circumstances, it ought to have taken appropriate measures in respect of the height of the wires to keep them minimum above 18 ft. All these aspects ought to have been taken note of by the Power Corporation which unfortunately in the present case has not been done.
There is yet another way to look at the aforesaid situation. The generation, transmission and distribution of electricity is in itself a hazardous activity. Since, it is the Power Corporation which exclusively deals with the power generation, transmission and distribution. Accordingly, it is bound by the doctrine of strict liability. In such a case if an accident occurs, it is not open for the Power Corporation to plead the negligence of the other party. It is not disputed that the accident was an outcome of overhanging loose high-tension electricity wire which could only have been strengthened restored and maintained by the Power Corporation, therefore, this Court is of the view that by virtue of doctrine of strict liability, the Power Corporation cannot escape its liability and necessarily the negligence of the Power Corporation has been made out and the finding returned by the Tribunal on this aspect cannot be faulted.
This Court is also fortified in its view and draws its strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have traced the origin of the aforesaid doctrine of strict liability from the decision of Rylands vs. Fletcher, reported in (1866) LR 1 Ex 265 and the way the aforesaid doctrine has evolved over a century and including noticing its applicability in our country. The relevant portion regarding the aforesaid doctrine and its applicability to the Corporations in this country as noticed in the aforesaid case is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-
"37. In India the landmark Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1987) 1 SCC 395 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 37 : AIR 1987 SC 1086] has gone much further than Rylands v. Fletcher [(1868) LR 3 HL 330 : (1861-73) All ER Rep 1] in imposing strict liability. The Court observed: (M.C. Mehta case [(1987) 1 SCC 395 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 37 : AIR 1987 SC 1086] , SCC p. 421, para 31) "31. ... If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads."
38. The Court also observed that this strict liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
39. The decision in M.C. Mehta case [(1987) 1 SCC 395 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 37 : AIR 1987 SC 1086] related to a concern working for private profit. However, in our opinion the same principle will also apply to statutory authorities (like the Railways), public corporations or local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit.
43. In India, Article 38(1) of the Constitution states "the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life". Thus, it is the duty of the State under our Constitution to function as a Welfare State, and look after the welfare of all its citizens.
44. In various social welfare statutes the principle of strict liability has been provided to give insurance to people against death and injuries, irrespective of fault.
45. Thus, Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 provides for compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, and this compensation is not for negligence on the part of the employer but is a sort of insurance to workmen against certain risks of accidents.
46. Similarly, Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, Sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, etc. incorporate the principle of strict liability.
47. However, apart from the principle of strict liability in Section 124-A of the Railways Act and other statutes, we can and should develop the law of strict liability dehors statutory provisions in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in M.C. Mehta case[(1987) 1 SCC 395 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 37 : AIR 1987 SC 1086] . In our opinion, we have to develop new principles for fixing liability in cases like the present one."
In light of the aforesaid, it would be clear that the Power Corporation cannot escape its liability and is definitely responsible for the accident. The first limb of the submission that the Power Corporation is not liable fails. In the totality of the facts and circumstances as well as from the evidence available on record, it has been substantiated that the Power Corporation did not maintain vigil of the power lines as per the prescribed norms and also it is covered by the doctrine of strict liability. Thus, it cannot be said that the liability apportioned by the Tribunal of 80% on the Power Corporation is so grossly unjustified so for this Court to intervene in the matter.
In light of the above discussions, this Court is of the firm opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence and no error can be found. Merely because another view is possible will not persuade this Court to disturb the findings returned by the Tribunal which otherwise are based on proper appreciation of the evidence.
In the result, all the above appeals fail and the same are dismissed and costs are made easy. The award passed by the Tribunal is upheld. This judgment shall govern all the appeals and a copy of this judgment be placed on record of each appeal.
Any amount deposited by the Power Corporation before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned to be released in favour of the claimants and if any sum falls short to satisfy the respective awards, then the remaining amount shall also be deposited by the Power Corporation before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today.
The record of the Tribunal shall also be remitted to the Tribunal concerned within three weeks from today.
Order Date :- 29.01.2020 Rakesh/-