INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL

STUDIES

TOPIC ON
M.P.S.E.B. AND ANR. VS JASBEER SINGH
SUPERVISED BY
ISHITA CHATARJEE
(ASST. PROF. OF LAW)

SUBMITTED BY
NAME :- KULDEEP THAKUR
ROLL NO :- 25
COURSE :- BA LLB. 5 YEARS
(1st SEMESTER)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have
been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.
I am highly indebted to ISHITA CHATARJEE for his guidance and
constant supervision as well as for providing necessary
information regarding the project & also for his support in
completing the project.
My thanks and appreciations also go to my friends in developing
the project and people who have willingly helped me out with their
abilities.

Teacher`s Signature Student`s Signature

……………………………. ……………………………….
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P.S.E.B. And Anr. vs Jasbeer Singh on 24 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR 2004 MP 151
Author: B Singh
Bench: B Singh, S Kemkar
JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by
District Judge, Narsimhapur,
dated January 6, 2003, in C.S. No. 8-B/ 1995.
2. Respondent is engaged in transport business. Truck No. CPJ 4122 is
owned by him. On 3-6-1992,the truck had been taken by
Bhagatsingh, agent of Harbhajan Singh Lamba, for carriage of
Tenduleaves from Khamaria to Narsimhapur. While the truck was
going from Richhai to Narsimhapur,loaded with Tendu leave bags, it
caught fire , due to spark from electric supply line of the
appellants.As a result, except for 6 bags of Tendu leaves, remaining
bags were burnt. The truck was also burntin the fire. Therefore,
plaintiff lodged claim for damages in the trial Court on the ground
that the fireaccident took place due to the negligence of the
appellants in not maintaining electric line properlywhich was hanging
13' above the road. Claim for Rs. 1,09,000.00 has been raised.
3. Appellants defendants denied the claim. It is stated that electric
line is hanging in accordancewith the norms, 19' - 20' above the
ground, it was not hanging as alleged and trucks moved beforeand
after the accident. The truck carried bags of Tendu leaves much
above the normal heightwithout taking precautionary measures. The
accident could also have happened due to thenegligence of the
labourers sitting on the bags of Tendu leaves, smoking Bidis, and not
because of the electric line.
4. Accordingly, trial Court framed as many as 6 issues in the case.
After recording evidence, it heldthat the accident took place on 3-6-
1992 when Truck No. CPJ 4122, going from Richhai, loaded withbags
of Tendu leaves, carried by Bhagwansingh to Narsimhapur, caught
fire due to sparks from theelectric wires, resulting in the burning of
the truck with 148 bags of Tendu leaves. The trial Courtalso held that
the accident took place due to the negligence of the appellants in not
maintaining the electric line in accordance with the norms.
Consequently, damages of Rs. 1,05,715.00 have beenawarded as
under :
(i) Building of cabin and body ...... Rs. 65,000.00
(ii) Tyres and suspension springs .. Rs. 20,000.00
(iii) Components as per Ex. P-7 ...... Rs. 7,100.00
(iv) Expenses as per Ex. P-2 ... ………Rs. 3,050.00
(v) Block, bore etc. ... …………………...Rs. 5,100.00
(vi) Piston, rings etc. ....................... Rs. 5,465.00
--Total = Rs. 1,05,715.00
M.P.S.E.B. And Anr. vs Jasbeer Singh on 24 June, 2003
The above amount is to carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
However, claim of Rs. 2,000.00for special damages has been rejected.
Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment anddecree of
the trial Court, this appeal has been filed by the appellants, assailing
the same.
5. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra for appellants and Shri Kumaresh
Pathak for the respondent.Record of the case has also been
examined, particularly the documents.
6. It is submitted by Shri Mishra that judgment and decree of the trial
Court are liable to be set asideas they are not based on facts and
appraisal of evidence in the case. Precisely, the submission is
thatevidence of the appellants, particularly statement of Shri B.S.
Patel, Assistant Engineer (D.W. 1),clearly demonstrates that the
accident did not take place due to the negligence of the appellants
inmaintaining the electricity line. Other witnesses do not speak about
any kind of negligence on thepart of the appellants in maintaining the
electricity line. The accident seems to have taken place dueto the
negligence of the respondent's labourers.
7. Careful reading of the evidence and appreciation thereof by the
trial Court demonstrates thatrespondent has been able to establish
negligence on the part of the appellants. There is no disputeabout
taking place of the accident; there is no dispute about the truck being
burnt; there is nodispute about burning of bags of Tendu leaves; the
only dispute is how it happened. The mostimportant witness in this
case is Shri H.L. Tembhre (P.W. 12). He is Dy. Range Officer. He
hasspecifically stated that after receiving information about the
accident, he went to the spot where hesaw destruction of Tendu
leave bags and salvaging of 6 bags only. He also saw burning of the
truck.People assembled there told him that due to wind, the
electricity wires came in contact resulting insparks resulting in the
fire, to the truck and Tendu leave bags. When he reached the spot,
he sawthat electricity wires were loose. Other evidence of the
plaintiff is on the same line. With this kind ofevidence, it is difficult to
accept the version of Shri B. S. Patel, Assistant Engineer, (D.W. 1).
First of all, he would not like to accept negligence on the part of the
appellants, otherwise, he would be liablefor action for not keeping
and supervising the electricity line properly. His statement that
thelabourers lifted the wires with a wood is contradictory to the later
statement that the electricity wireshad separators to avoid contact.
Had they been separated as alleged, the wires could not have joined.
There is Panchnama (Ex. P-1) on record. This Panchnama has been
prepared by the persons whoreached the spot after the accident and
not by the respondent. The Panchnama also corroborates theversion
of the respondent.
8. Next it is contended that the dan ages awarded are on the higher
side. We do not think so.Looking to the nature of loss to the truck,
this extent of award is not much, rather it is reasonable,spent on the
repairs of the truck.
9. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is
dismissed.Parties to bear their own costs.
 BILBIOGRAPHY
WEBSITES:
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1483658/