2000 PLP 1926 (CLC)

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted fact that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners that' petitioners are negligent after proper appreciation of evidence on record, this Court has no jurisdiction to disturb the finding of both the Courts below. Judgments of both the Courts below are in accordance with law as the. principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Qadir's ` case PLD 1988 SC 625 and 1985 CLC

657. It is .pertinent to mention here that the statements of P.Ws. (Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Akbar and Nasir Ahmad) that the buffalo of respondent/plaintiff died due to the electric shock. They were cross‑examined at length but they were consistent with their examination‑in‑chief. They. corroborated with each other on all material points. Their statements inspire confidence and prove that buffalo died due to the electric shock so much so statement of P.W. 1 Bashir Ahmad shows that incident took place in his presence. The pole was installed by the petitioner near his tubewell fromwhere the electric supply was supplied to his tubewell. He lodged complaint qua short circuit of electricity in the pole whereas‑ the statements of D.Ws. of the petitioner/defendant failed to rebut the same. The witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff were present failed the time of incident whereas the D.Ws. of the petitioners/defendants were not present at the time of occurrence at the spot. It is pertinent to mention here that the word ' neglect' means the existence of right and duty on the well‑known principle wherever there are rights, there are obligations also. Similarly the word ' negligence' consists in the omission to do something which reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of a woman affair, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not .do meaning thereby negligence simpliciter would not tortious, unless it was proved at the same time that the defendants owed a duty to take care qua the plaintiff. It is admitted fact that pole was installed by the respondent near the tubewell of P.W.1 fromwhere the electric supply is supplied to the tubewell. It is the duty and obligations of the officials of the petitioners to take care/to check all the installations of electrification, including the electric poles whether those are short‑circuit or not. The respondent/plaintiff brought sufficient evidence on record that the pole was earthed and the buffalo died due to electric shock. It is settled proposition of law where a person has suffered personal injuries on account of the negligence of another, he is entitled to, damages for personal suffering and for loss of enjoyment of life and also on actual pecuniary loss resulting to and the expenses reasonably incurred by him. The petitioners are responsible ; for the acts and omission of their employees. I am fortified by the following. judgments:‑‑‑ (1) River Steam Navigation Company Ltd.'s case PLD 1956 Dacca 196. . (2) Ursubina R.D. Lina's case PLD 1960 Kar. 712. (3) PLD 1960 Kar. 712 (4) Tabbani Arif's case PLD 1963 Dacca 665. (5) Malik Raza Khan's case PLD 1965 Kar. 2445. The petitioner/defendants have not discharged their burden to show that they were not negligent. I am in agreement with the finding of the Courts below that the petitioner/defendants have failed to do so. It was for the petitioners to show that it had not been guilty of negligence in ensuring that the electric current did not run through, the pole. For its failure to offer any valid excuse for absolving of itself of negligence the respondent's suit could not but have been decreed. In the present case the suit was in fact' decreed. The quantum of damages claimed by the respondent is already on low side. The officials of the petitioners are duty bound to do the needful for keeping the installations of electricity in proper order. Under the law petitioners are responsible to properly maintain the poles especially the pole through which the electric current is supplying to the tubewell. The word "negligence" has been interpreted by Lord Macmillan in Stevenson's ca‑‑P 1932 AC 562 and relevant observation is as follows: Negligence in the sense of mere carelessness does not, of course. give rise to any cause of action; but carelessness assumes legal quality of negligence where there is a duty to take care and where failure in that duty has caused damages. Lord Wright has also defined the word, "negligence" in legal terminology in Iron and Coal Company's case 1993 AC 1 in the following terms:‑‑ .more than heedless or careless conduct, whether in omission or, commission; it properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing." I am fortified by the reported case S. Iqbal Hussain Jaffery v. Karachi Electric Supply Co. and the relevant observation is as follows (1994 CLC 1903): "It .is clear that the defendant who is manufacturer, supplier and distributor of electricity ought to have foreseen, as a reasonable man would do, that if the overhead electric wires are not maintained properly and sufficient safeguards are not provided and, further, steps are not taken in the event of the wire breaking, to ensure that it does not remain live, injury, or even death would be caused to persons at any place where they have a right to be either for business or for pleasure." Reference can also be made in Buckland's case (1949) 1 KB,

410. The Honourable Supreme Court has also considered the aforesaid proposition of law in Pakistan Steel Mills' case and laid down the following principle (1993 SCMR 848):‑‑ "Firstly, when the thing that inflicted the damage was under the sole management and control of the defendant and secondly that occurrence is such that it would not have happened without negligence and thirdly, that there must be no evidence as to how or why the occurrence took place. It was there held that in such circumstances, as above, the defendants have to persuade the Court that the accident did not occur on account of their negligence." The word "duty" is also defined in Corpus Juris Secundum to the following effect: "A human action which is exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them; The term is sometimes used in the sense of 'obligation':‑‑‑ The word is commonly reserved as the designation of those obligations of performance, care, or observance which rest upon a person in an official or fiduciary capacity." The word "negligence" is also defined in Halsbury's Laws of England: "Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts." The word "negligence" is also defined in Corpus Juris Secundum Volume, 65‑A: "Contributory negligence is merely another form of negligence and is conduct for which the plaintiff is responsible amounting to a breach of the duty which the law imposes on persons to protect themselves from injury, and which, concurring and cooperating with actionable negligence for which the defendant is responsible, contributes to the injury. complained of as a proximate cause." Similarly the word "damage" is defined in Corpus. Juris Secundum, Volume 86:' "Damage resulting from a breach .of a duty and invasion of aright is a necessary element of a tort." According to Halsbury's Laws of England "damage" means disadvantage which is suffered by a person as a result of the act or default of another. The word "duty" qua the negligence is also defined in the book namely Fridman on Torts as follows:‑‑ "It has also been said that a breach of the statute constitutes personal negligence on the part of the employer, even if the actual negligent act, the disregard of the statutory duty, was the act of the employer's servant, or independent contractor, to whom the employer, in many instances a corporation, had delegated the task of fulfilling the statutory requirements." Learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread or non‑read by both the Courts below. He failed to point out any material irregularity committed by both the Courts, below. Officials of the petitioner are duty bound to do the. needful for keeping the installations of electricity in proper order. The WAPDA Authorities should hold an inquiry to determine that who officials are responsible to this sad incident, so, the damage claimed by the respondents should be recovered from the pocket of such officials and not from the department which is a ‑public property. Ultimately the public‑at‑large will have to bear the expenses of these damages paid from the public exchequer. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Chairman, WAPDA Department who is directed to constitute a high power committee to probe into the matter and the aforesaid amount of the damages given to the respondent/plaintiff shall be recovered from all those officers/officials found responsible for this mischief and also ensure the proceeding against them under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and also get criminal cases registered against all those persons who are responsible for the said negligence and even did not properly defend the case of the authority in the Court of law by not producing proper evidence to dislodge the claim of the respondent. In view of what has been discussed above this revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms. . H.B.T./C‑12/L 'Petition dismissed.