2001 PLP 227 (CLC)

High Court Appeal No.372 of 1999 and Suit No.1063 of 1991, decided on 31st August, 2000. ‑‑‑‑S. 1‑‑‑Fatal accident‑‑‑Claim for compensation‑‑‑Respondent, the husband of the deceased had alleged that accident had taken place due to negligence of appellant (Electric Supply Company) in maintaining electric wire in proper form‑‑‑Court accepting claim of respondent held the appellant liable and awarded compensation to the respondent‑‑‑Appellant had failed to prove that accident had taken place because an unauthorized connection was taken from the electric pole by the organizers of marriage party which was attended by deceased‑‑‑Appellant was required to maintain electricity wire in proper shape and take appropriate measures to prevent accidents‑‑‑Guard wires were required to be installed in every electric pole to ensure that whenever live wire would fall its effect was neutralised, but no explanation Was available on the part of appellant for non‑existence of guard wires‑‑‑Appellant, in circumstances, was tightly held liable and compensation was rightly awarded to respondent. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori for Appellant. This appeal is directed against a judgment of a learned Single Judge awarding compensation to the respondent No. l in the amount of Rs'.3,78,600 under the fatal accident case on account of the demise of his wife Akhtar Sultana. Basically the admitted position appears to be that on 9‑5‑1991 the deceased who had gone to attend a marriage party in White House Health Club, Landhi was electrocuted as live wire from a pole maintained by the appellant fell upon her. The respondent alleged that such accident took place due to negligence of the appellant to maintain the wire in proper form whereas the appellant denied their liability. The learned Single Judge held the appellant liable and awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.3,78,600 as against the respondent's claim of Rs.12,50,

000. Mr. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori learned counsel for the appellant in the first place argued that the accident took place because an unauthorised connection had been taken from the pole by the organiser of the marriage party. Though such statement has been made in the affidavit‑in‑evidence filed by the only witness for the appellant that deponent clearly admitted in cross‑examination that he was never aware of the incident till he was briefed a few days ago and that he was not posted in the area or conducted an inquiry at the relevant time. Therefore, we are afraid that such statement cannot be given much weight. In any event, it is settled law that appellant is required to maintain their wires in proper shape and take appropriate measures to prevent accidents. In fact their witness himself admitted that guard wires are required to be installed in every pole to ensure that whenever live wire falls its effect is neutralize. There is no explanation for non‑existence of the guard wires. Learned counsel next argued that the accident occurred due to the negligence of those who had organised the marriage party and had stolen electricity. He has, however, not been able to refer any legal principle whereby on account of contrib6ttory negligence of some person other than the respondents or the deceased, the appellant is absolved of liability. For these reasons, we find no force in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine. H.B.T./K‑20/K H.C. appeal dismissed.