Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-07-2023, the Division Bench of Goutam Bhaduri* and Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ., opined that the time runs when the cause of action accrued and in the present case, the minor did not attain the age of the majority, and filed the case after service of the notice to the respondent. The Court opined that at the most, it could be stated that the cause of action started when the first notice was served on 12-01-2019 and since, the suit was filed on 25-09-2019, it could not be held to be barred by limitation. Further, the Court opined that the death was occurred due to electrocution and the witnesses’ statement also showed that the deceased came into the contact with live electric wire and was electrocuted, thus, in the absence of any other evidence, the same would be acceptable, and would lead to draw the analogy of strict liability. The Court opined that the Electricity Department could not escape its responsibility of paying compensation to the dependents of victims of electrocution by citing negligence on the victim’s part and directed Respondent 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 10,78,000 to the appellants.
Background
In an instant case, the deceased was working as a labour and looked after his entire family, who were the appellants herein. As per the appellants, the deceased used to earn Rs. 7,000 per month, which would have increased with the passage of time. Further, the appellants stated that on 22-02-2014, because of heavy rains and storm, the electric wire connected from the transformer, fell on the ground, in which the electricity flow continued. On the same day, the deceased got into contact with the scattered wire, by which he sustained severe injuries due to electrocution and was subsequently, admitted to the hospital. However, on 28-02-2014, during the treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries and cause of death was affirmed due to electrocution. The villagers stated that it was the fault on the part of Electricity Department, and subsequently, after the gap of five years, notices were exchanged by the legal heirs claiming compensation and the suit was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000.
Respondents 1 and 2 denied the adverse allegations and stated that the death was caused due to self-inflicted injuries, as the deceased was installing DO in the transformer. Respondents 1 and 2 stated that, while putting a DO, the deceased came in contact with the electric wire and died. The Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation and the death was not due to the Electricity Department’s negligence and dismissed the suit.
Thus, the appellants filed the present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the law of limitation was found upon maxims such as “Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium”, which meant that litigation must come to an end in the interest of society as a whole, and “vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura subveniunt” meaning that the law assisted those who were vigilant with their rights, and not those who slept thereupon. The Court opined that the law of limitation identified the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the State and the litigant, therefore, when the beneficiaries were minors for a cause of action, it could not be said that they are sleeping over their rights.
The Court opined that the cause of action normally accrued when there was a person who could sue and another person, who could be sued. In the present case, when the notice was sent, then only the right to sue had accrued in the appellant’s favour, therefore, the present case was not barred by limitation. Further, the Court referred to Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and opined that the time runs when the cause of action accrued and in the present case, the minor did not attain the age of the majority and filed the case after service of the notice to the respondent. The Court opined that at the most, it could be stated that the cause of action started when the first notice was served on 12-01-2019 and since, the suit was filed on 25-09-2019, it could not be held to be barred by limitation.
The Court opined that the death was occurred due to electrocution and the witnesses’ statement also showed that the deceased came into the contact with live electric wire and was electrocuted, thus, in the absence of any other evidence, the same would be acceptable, and would lead to draw the analogy of strict liability.
Further regarding the quantum of compensation, the Court noted that the incident happened in 2014, and opined that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper to hold the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000 instead of Rs.7,000. The Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and opined that considering the age of the deceased i.e. thirty-two years, prospects would be considered at 40% of the salary and since there were more than four dependents, deduction would be one-fourth towards the personal income of the deceased.
The Court opined that the Electricity Department could not escape its responsibility of paying compensation to the dependents of victims of electrocution by citing negligence on the part of the victim and directed Respondent 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 10,78,000 to the appellants and the amount of compensation would carry the interest at the rate of six percent per annum with effect from the date of filing of civil suit i.e. 25-09-2019, till the actual date of realization. The Court stated that the compensation amount would be distributed amongst the deceased family members, wherein the deceased’s wife was entitled to Rs, 1,78,000, the deceased minor’s children were entitled to Rs. 2,00,000 and the deceased’s mother would be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000.
[Rameshwari v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 607, decided on 24-1-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: C.R. Sahu, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate and Raja Sharma, Advocate.
Amicus Curiae: Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate
