TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. JAGANNATH HRISHI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited [TSECL] and its officer. Also heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3.

(2.) Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 has at the outset submitted that the appellant No.1 has accepted the debts and liabilities of the corporation in the year of its formation i.e. 2004 and as such, the respondents No.1 and 2 cannot be made liable for payment of any damage for the accident that occurred on 14.10.2005 causing impairment of the victim [the respondent No.1].

(3.) This appeal under Section 96 of the CPC arises from the judgment and decree respectively dated 18.03.2016 and 03.06.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2 in Money Suit No.08 of 2008. The suit being Money Suit No.08 of 2008 was instituted by the respondent No.1 for realizing the damages caused to him for snapping off the live electric line. The case as stated in the plaint in short is that on 14.10.2005, as amended subsequently in terms of the order dated 02.02.2016 delivered in CRP No.144 of 2015 [Jagannath Rishi Das v. State of Tripura and Others], at about 2.45 p.m. when the respondent No.1 was witnessing the immersion procession of idol Durga at Durga Chowmuhani near Suryatoron Club, a high power electricity line got snapped off from the pole and it came in touch with the respondent No.1. He was immediately taken to the GBP Hospital at Agartala. In the course of the treatment both the hands of the respondent No.1 had been amputated. According to the plaintiff-respondent No.2, the said accident could take place for the negligence of appellants in maintaining the electricity line. According to the respondent No.1 installation, maintenance and control of the entire electricity system in the state vested with the appellants. The plaintiff has categorically pleaded that the defendants, the appellants herein, are guilty of negligence as they failed to take due care and caution. As consequence of which the maintenance of electricity line was neglected and for that reason, the said accident by falling down of the high voltage electricity line could occur. From the date of the accident, the cause of action arose and the appellant claimed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as lump sum compensation against the permanent disablement that the respondent No.1 have suffered. The petitioner has assorted the claims on five segments which are as follows :