Delhi High Court
Angoori Devi And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 22 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988DELHI305, AIR 1988 DELHI 305
JUDGMENT N.C. Kochhar, J.
(1) Smt. Angoori Devi, Miss Kanta, Miss Manju, Miss Shakuntla, Miss Anita, Master Prem Paul, Master Kishan, Master Mahesh and Master Sudama (hereinafter jointly referred as plaintiffs and severally as plaintiffs No. 1 to 9 respectively), had filed an application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to sue as indigent persons to claim a sum ofRs. I lakh by way of compensation from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the defendant). The said application was allowed vide order dated 23rd March, 1978 passed by P. S. Safeer, J. .
(2) The case set up in the plaint is as under : The Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU)-of the defendant had been having a wooden shack at the Madras Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and the said shack had been in , very bad shape. Lots of loose wires, iron pipes and other junk had been collected at the top and around the shack by the DESU. A temporary electric connection by means of loose and necked wires had been taken in the said shack from an electric pole nearby and the shack being on the road-side the drainage had also been obstructed. On the night between 17th and 18th August, 1986 it had been raining and as a result of obstruction caused by the said shack water had collected around it and as a result of gross negligence of the Desu and its servants, the shack and the area around it had got electrified and as a result thereof Mr. Gopi Ram (the deceased) who was the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and the father of plaintiffs No. 2 to 9, had died by way of electrocution from the shack at about 8.15 A.M.on 18th August, 1976. Gopi Ram was about 40 years of age at the time of his death and at that time plaintiff No. 1 was aged about 35 years and plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 were aged between 15 years and 11/2 years and they have suffered huge and irreparable loss and injury due to his death' and because of the negligence on the part of the Desu and its employees. The plaintiffs have lost the only bread earner and have been deprived of their means of livelihood. The plaintiff No. 1 has also been deprived of satisfactory and normal married life and plaintiffs No. 2 to 9 have been deprived of proper education and future prospects. The deceased was a bullock cart driver and was making net earning of Rs. 600.00 per month after meeting all the expenses and the said amount was being spent entirely on the family. Although the los cause to the plaintiffs cannot be compensated in terms of money, yet the plaintiffs claim only a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for the loss and damages caused to them on account of 'the death of the deceased as a result of rash and gross negligent , of the Desu and its employees. Notice dated 30th October, 1976 was served on the defendant but it has failed to pay the amount. Hence this suit. The plaintiffs thus prayed that decree for Rs 1lakh be passed in their favor and against the defendant with such other relief as might be considered proper by the Court.
(3) The suit has been contested by the defendant. In the written statement it has been admitted that the structure bad been maintained by the Desu at the spot but it has been denied that any temporary loose connection had been provided in the said structure. It has been denied that there was any leakage of electricity or that the deceased died due to electrocution and it has been pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the Desu or its employees. It has also been denied that any electric current was flowing in the shack in question or around it. It has been denied for want of knowledge that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased. The liability to pay any compensation have also been denied. The receipt of notice from the plaintiffs has been admitted but it has been stated that proper reply had been sent thereto. The defendant has prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.
(4) After taking the replication, the following issues were framed in this case on 18th April, 1980:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of deceased Gopi Ram ?
2. Whether Gopi Ram died as a result of electrocution on 18th August, 1976 ?
3. Whether the death of Gopi Ram wax as a result of the negligence of the defendant Municipal Corporation of Delhi?
4. To what damages if any, are the plaintiffs entitled ?
5. Relief.
(5) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. My findings on the issues ere as under :- Issue NO. 1:
(6) The plaintiff No. 1 while appearing as Public Witness 2 has deposed that she is the widow of the deceased and plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are his daughters and plaintiffs No. 6 to 9 are his sons. Not only her statement has remained un-challenged but there is no evidence in rebuttal. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of deceased Gopi Ram. The issue is accordingly decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. Issues NO. 2 & 3:
(7) Both these issues are inter-connected and being disposed of together. Public Witness I Kailash Chand and Public Witness 3 Ram Charan are the witnesses of the occurrence and both of them have their shops at the Madras Road near the scene of occurrence.
(8) Public Witness I Kailash Chand has deposed that near the Khokha in question there was a shop of fodder seller and the owner of the said shop had affixed a balance with the help of a nail in the wall of the khokha and that on 18th August, 1976 at about 8.15 A.M. while he was taking tea at his shop, he had noticed that the deceased and one chhote were stuck to the balance whereupon he picked a wooden stool and threw it on the scale which got moved with the result that the deceased and Chhote were released there from and Chhote fell on the left hand side and the deceased fell on the left hand side i.e. towards the khokha and died due to the electric shock. He further deposed that at that that there was current even in the water and he has lodged a report with the police: He proved the copy of the F.I.R. as Ex. P-1, He further deposed that after some time a linesman of the Desu came and cut off the electric connection from the khokha, with the result the current in the khokha as well as in the water disappeared. Ram Charan Public Witness 3 has corroborated the statement of Public Witness 1. D.W. 1 S.P. Chopra is the Executive Engineer of the Desu, who had joined the area office of the Desu in September 1976 and who is stated to have made enquiries from the members of the staff and prepared his report. He proved his report as Ex. DW-1/1 DW-2 is Raj Kumar, the Inspector of the DESU. This witness deposed that on receiving a complaint in his office on 19th August, 1976 about the leakage "at the spot, he had gone there Along with the Gang mistress and had got the electric connection tested but did not find any leakage at the spot. D.W/3 is Hari Ram, linesman who after going to the spot had disconnected the electric connection of the khokha on 18th August, 1976 after the occurrence. He deposed that there was no leakage either in the khokha or in the water but he had disconnected the electric connection as people were complaining about the current in the water and khokha. D.W.4 is Kameshwar, Head Mistry of the defendant who also went to the spot on 19th August, 1976 after learning about the electrocution of the deceased. He has deposed that with the help of all-time or he had tested the lines but found no leakage therein.
(9) It may be noticed that the statement of Public Witness 1 that the deceased died due to electrocution firstly after getting stuck with the scale and thereafter by the side of khokha had remained unchallenged. The statement of Public Witness 3 Ram Charan in this regard has also not been challenged, in cross-examination and no evidence has been produced in rebuttal. Although Raj Kumar, Inspector appearing as D.W. 2 and Kameshwar, Head Mistry as D.W. 3 had deposed that test work were conducted at the spot no test report has been produced on record. Admittedly they reached the spot a day after the day of occurrence, when the electric connection had already been disconnected. Mr. S. P. Chopra, D.W. 1 came to the scene after about a month of the date of occurrence and the witnesses, whose statements he recorded during the course of the enquiry, have not been produced. Ex. DW-1/1 is the copy of the letter dated 30th November, 1976 written by Mr. S. P. Chopra, DW-1 to the S.H.O Kashmere Gate, Delhi slating that according to the enquiry conducted by him, the death did not occur due to the negligence but it is possible that the deceased died from an electric shock either from the water or from the scale hanging on the shack. It has been admitted by D.W. 2 Raj Kumar and D.W. 4 Kameshwar that there was no other structure near the khokha in question where the electricity connection was available and Hari Ram, D.W. 3 in cross-examination deposed that he had not noticed any other structure near the khokha where electricity might have been provided. If there was no other structure near the khokha in question having electric connection and as noted above, if the deceased had died after receiving shock either from the current coming out of the balance or from the current in the water near the khokha, it is not explained as to how the current could be found either in the scale or in the water unless there had been leakage from the electric connection in the khokha. As noted above, the test report has also not been placed on record. The fact that the electric current leaked at the spot is itself a proof of negligence on the part of Desu and its employees, I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the deceased died because of electrocution and as a resuit of negligence of the defendant and its employees. Both these issues are accordingly decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant "
(10) The first thing to be seen is : as to what was the age of the deceased. It is of course true that the plaintiffs.No.1's statement that the deceased was 35 "years of age at the time of his death, has remained un-challenged in the cross-examination but in view of the fact that it has been pleaded in the plaint that he was 40 years old at the time of death, the age of the deceased cannot be taken to be 35 years at-that time. There being no evidence in rebuttal, I hold that the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of his death.
(11) It has next to be seen as to what was the income, of the deceased at the time of his death. The statement of the plaintiff No. 1 that the deceased used to ply a bullock cart and carry goods on hire has also remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. It is correct that the statement of the plaintiff No. 1 that he used to give to her a sum of Rs. 25.00 to Rs. 301-every day for household expenses has remained un-challenged but in view of the fact that it has been pleaded in the plaint that the deceased used to make a net earning of Rs. 600.00 per month i.e. Rs. 20.00 per delay after meeting all the expenses and the said amount was being spent entirely on the plaintiffs it cannot be taken that the amount being spent paid by the deceased to the plaintiff No. 1 for house-hold expenses was more than Rs. 600/ per month, In these circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff No. 1 was getting from the deceased a sum of Rs. 600.00 per month by way of house-hold expenses. There were 10. members of the family including the deceased and even if the deceased share was 1/10th. i.e. Rs. 60.00 towards the-expenses, the remaining amount that was being spent on the plaintiffs, out of the earnings of deceased comes Rs. 540.00 per month. The family thus got Rs. 6480.00 per year the expenses and maintenance of the plaintiffs. Considering the life expectancy in these days it can easily be said that the deceased would have lived and worked till the age of 60 years. The plaintiffs who are the legal representatives of the deceased have thus lost his earnings for a period of 20 years. The amount thus lost would come to about Rs. 1,29,600/. Although on account of rise in price the benefit of lump sum payment become negligible, even if the amount on account of such payment is deducted @ 15 per cent the amount payable to the plaintiffs would be more than Rs. I lakh. The plaintiffs have however, claimed only a sum of Rs. 1 lakh way of damages from the defendant and consequently I hold that they are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1 lakh only (Rupees one lakh only) by way of damages from the defendant. The issue is decided accordingly. Issue NO. 5 (RELIEF) :
(12) In view of my findings on issues No. I to 4, decree the suit of the plaintiffs for Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) with costs against the defendant who shall also be liable to pay to the plaintiffs interest @ 6 per cent per annum on the said amount with effect from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 17th August, 1977 till the date of realization of the amount. The plaintiffs were allowed to sue as indigent person. The plaint in this suit for the recovery of Rs. 1 lakh was required to be affixed with the court-fee of Rs. 3320.00 Only a court fee of Rs. 2.75 had been paid by the plaintiffs on the application for permission to sue as indigent persons. The remaining sum of Rs. 3317.25 is also recoverable from the defendant The suit stands disposed of accordingly.