Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala v. Ajmer Kaur and Others

IN T

Punjab State Ele

Ajmer Kaur and

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

(thr

Ms

Mr

MANDEEP PA

1.

Thi Electricity Boa

25.02.1997 pass the appeal of th the learned tria respondents/plai respondents/plai Brief Facts

2.

damages on acc THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

AT CHANDIG

RS

XO

Re

Pro ectricity Board

VERSUS

d Another

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Y.P.Khullar, Advocate for the a rough video conferencing) s. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for r. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate for the ANNU, J is Regular Second Appeal has rd (for short, 'PSEB') against sed by the learned Additional D he respondents/plaintiffs was acc al Court dated 02.11.1993 wa intiffs was decreed. Cross-objec intiffs seeking enhancement of c e respondents/plaintiffs institute count of the death of one Piara S

JAB AND HARYANA GARH SA-2409-1997 (O&M) and OBJC-3-C-1998 served on: 20.08.2025 onounced on:25.08.2025

.....Appellant

.....Respondents DEEP PANNU appellant e LRs of respondents. s been filed by the Punjab St t the judgment and decree da District Judge, Rupnagar, where cepted, the judgment and decree as set aside, and the suit of ctions have also been filed by compensation. ed a civil suit seeking recovery Singh, aged about 35 years, who

tate ated eby e of y of

stated to have respondents/plai that he was cont

3.

Acc Ram and others Barsalpur. They Board were pa become loose du pole being use receiving electr compensation o heirs.

4.

question did no that the wires w occurred, accor companions, wh accidentally tou deceased inform accident avoided

5.

On following issues e died on 6.11.1988 after s intiffs alleged that the deceased tributing ₹1000 per month from h cording to the respondents/plain was engaged in repairing the bo y pleaded that the electric wire assing overhead in contraventio ue to negligence of the Board, a ed for the repair, resulting in ric shocks and dying on the of ₹1,00,000/- on account of dea e defendant-PSEB contested the ot belong to Piara Singh but to were intact, at a height of 20 fe rding to the appellant/defendan hile drilling a new bore, lost c uched the live wires. The appell med the Board, the supply coul d. The Board, therefore, denied a n the basis of the pleadings, th s for adjudication:

uffering an electric shock. T d was unmarried and issueless, a his earnings of ₹2000 to them. ntiffs, Piara Singh along with S ore of a tubewell situated in vill es of the Punjab State Electric on of rules, that such wires h and that current passed into the i both Piara Singh and Sant R spot. They accordingly claim ath of Piara Singh, being his le e suit, asserting that the tubewel one Gurdev Singh. It was plead et, and not defective. The accid nt, because the deceased and control over a metallic pipe wh ant/defendant asserted that had ld have been switched off and any negligence. he learned trial Court framed

and Sant age city had iron Ram med egal ll in ded dent his

¶1pla mu

2.

¶3suit

4. OP

¶5Findings of the

6.

In Chajja Singh (P Rekha Mittal (P postmortem r appellant/defend

7.

Aft evidence of the It held that Piara uplifted, accide shock and died the part of the P decree dated 02

Whether Piara Singh died on aintiffs being his heirs are enti uch? OPP Whether the suit is not maint Whether the plaintiffs have t? OPD. Whether the suit is bad for PD. Relief. e Trial Court order to prove their case, th PW1), Jaswant Singh (PW2), As PW4), Sher Singh (PW5), and ten report (Ex.P2), and power dant examined Charan Singh Bop ter hearing the parties, the learn defendant, which was based upo a Singh was repairing the tubewe entally touched the live wires o due to his own negligence. Acc PSEB, the learned trial Court dis .11.1993.

n account of electric shock and tled to compensation? If so, h tainable? OPD. no locus standi to file the pres r non-joinder of necessary parti he respondents/plaintiffs examin shok Kumar, Draftsman (PW3), ndered a site plan (Ex. P1), copy r of attorney (Ex.P3). T parai, Junior Engineer (DW1). rned trial Court concluded that on official records, was convinci ell when the metallic pipe, on be overhead. He received an elec cordingly, finding no negligence smissed the suit vide judgment a

how sent ies? ned Dr. y of ing. eing ctric e on

Findings of the

8.

Additional Dist through the evi been satisfactor Singh died due defendant-Board deposed that bo wiring, and tha examination, he loose and hang authorities for re

9.

supported the pl that Piara Singh tubewell. As reg Charan Singh B 1988, as he had visited the spot reports brought withheld materi appellate Court multiplier of 12

e Lower Appellate Court e appellants/plaintiffs preferre trict Judge, Rupnagar. The lo idence, held that the evidence p rily rebutted by the Board. PW to electric shock and that the d were loose and were passin oth Piara Singh and Sant Ram su at there was current even in t e stated that the wires were at ging. He also stated that Piara epair, but no action was taken. e appellate Court also relied laintiffs' version, and PW5, the b h and Sant Ram died due to gards the defence evidence, the a Boparai admitted that he was not only joined Chamkaur Sahib in immediately after the accident on record. The appellate Court, ial witnesses, and adverse infere decreed the suit and awarded ₹ .

d an appeal before the learn ower appellate Court, after go produced by the plaintiffs had W1 Chajja Singh stated that Pi wires put up by the employees ng over the tubewell. He furt uffered electric shocks due to lo the poles of the PSEB. In cro a height of 15 feet but were v Singh had approached the PS upon PW2 Jaswant Singh, w brother of the deceased, who sta electric shock while repairing appellate Court observed that DW posted in the division concerned n September 1991. The officers w were not produced, nor were th , therefore, held that the Board h ence was drawn. Consequently, ₹72,000 as compensation, takin

ned oing not iara s of ther oose oss-very SEB who ated W1 d in who heir had

Submissions of

10.

Lea respondents/plai for 30–40 years had ever been l wrongly decided was further argu negligence of th could have been

11.

Lea supported the ju the Board was should have bee years old, and in allowing cross-o Findings

12.

I h record. The bur electrocution on well settled that prove negligenc

13.

It s height of about wires were belo f Counsel for the parties arned counsel for ap intiffs failed to prove negligence and could not suddenly have be lodged by the deceased. It was d Issue No. (i) against the Boar ued that DW1 had clearly depose he deceased, and that had the de n disconnected. arned counsel for the responde udgment of the lower appellate C duly proved by PWs. It was fu en enhanced by applying a multi nterest should have been awarde objections. have carefully considered the riv rden of Issue No. (i), namely n account of negligence of the B t in cases of tortious liability, th ce of the defendant. stands admitted from the depositi 15 feet. No cogent evidence has ow statutory height or dangerous

pellant-Board argued that e. Infact the wires were in existe ecome loose, and that no compla submitted that the appellate Co rd by drawing adverse inference ed that the accident occurred due eceased informed the Board, sup ents/plaintiffs, on the other ha Court, submitting that negligence urther urged that the compensat iplier of 16 as the deceased was ed on the compensation amount val contentions and scrutinised whether Piara Singh died due Board, lay upon the plaintiffs. I he burden lies upon the plaintiff ion of PW1 that the wires were a s been adduced to establish that sly loose. It is also undisputed t

nce aint ourt e. It e to pply and, e of tion s 35 t by e to It is ff to at a

these wires had No written com repair was made

14.

wires were loo without corrob conclusively est drawing adverse were not produc plaintiffs of thei

15.

On that the decease tension lines an Such conduct, w disconnect the proximate cause but the careless Conclusion

16.

In l discharge the bu testimony of P insufficient in l was correct in h pipe accidentall been in existence for more than mplaint or record has been prod e to the PSEB authorities prior to e lower Appellate Court observ ose and that current was in th boration from technical or tablish negligence of the Board. T e inference merely because offic ced. The weakness of the defen ir burden of proof. n the contrary, the evidence of r ed was drilling the bore with lo nd lost control of the pipe, whi without taking precautionary m supply, amounts to negligence, e of the accident was not the al handling of the metallic pipe un light of the above, it is held that urden of proving negligence on t PW1 and PW2, though relied aw to establish negligence with holding that Piara Singh died du ly came into contact with live

n 35 years for supply to the villa duced to show that any request o the accident. ved that PW1 had stated that e poles. However, this testimo documentary evidence, can The appellate Court further erred cers who inspected the site in 19 ndant's evidence cannot absolve respondents/plaintiffs clearly sho ong metallic pipes under live hi ich accidentally touched the wir measures or informing the Board on the part of the deceased. T lleged loose condition of the wi der live wires by the deceased. t the respondents/plaintiffs failed the part of the appellant-Board. T upon by the appellate Court, hout corroboration. The trial Co ue to his own negligence when wires. The lower appellate Co

age. for ony, nnot d in ows igh-res. d to ires d to , is ourt

misdirected itse inferences again

17.

Con are set aside and upheld. The c compensation al

18.

In t allowed.

19.

Par

20.

Pen

August 25, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

elf in reversing those findings nst the Board. nsequently, the judgment and d d the judgment and decree of the cross-objections filed by the lso stand dismissed. the result, the appeal filed by th rties are left to bear their own co nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

by drawing unwarranted adve decree of the lower appellate Co e trial Court dismissing the suit e plaintiffs for enhancement he Punjab State Electricity Board sts. stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

erse ourt are of