TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD. (TSECL) Vs. SWAPNA DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. S. Deb(Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Soumendu Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This is an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC from the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2016 and 21.04.2016 respectively delivered in MS 08/2011 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala. The respondents instituted a suit under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 for claiming damages for death of Narayan Debnath, husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondents No.2 and 3 which occurred on 17.08.2009 at about 1800 hours. The case of the respondents in the suit was that during the storm and rain, an electric live wire snapped from the pole and fell on the courtyard of Narayan Debnath. The electric live wires/lines in that pole were not properly managed by the appellants for which local people (such as PW-2) lodged complaint for proper management of those lines, but that was not heeded to and as a result, for such stormy wind, the line snapped from the pole and fell on the courtyard of the deceased during rain and he got electrocuted and died out of that electrocution. The death by electrocution is not under challenge. For the said death, a case for unnatural death was registered in Teliamura Police Station vide UD Case No.25/2009 on the very date i.e. 17.08.2009 under Section 174 of the Cr. P. C. Narayan Debnath was rushed to the Teliamura rural hospital by the local people, but he could not be saved and he was declared dead by the said hospital. Before filing the suit, the respondents had served a demand notice claiming compensation to the extent of Rs.11,20,000/- as damages for death of said Narayan Debnath who, according to the respondents, was the sole bread-earner of the family. He had monthly income of Rs.5,000/- per month from cultivation of rice and vegetables.

(3.) The appellants, the defendants in the suit, filed the written statement and contested the suit by stating that the occurrence took place inside the house of the deceased and as such, the appellants cannot be made responsible for death of the deceased. Hence, they were not liable for any damage. Based on the rival contentions, the trial Judge framed following issues for adjudication of the suit: