In the Court of Sh.Amit Sherawat, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Palwal.

Man Singh versus D.H.B.V.N.L.

Suit for Mandatory Injunction

Written Statement on behalf of the defendants

Respected Sir,

The defendants respectfully submit as under: -

Preliminary Objections: -

1. That the present suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present

form.

2 That the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit against

the defendants.

3 That the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit

against the defendants.

4 That the plaintiffs are estopped by their acts, conduct & acquiescence

to file the present suit.

5. That the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands before the Hon’ble

Court and they have concealed and suppressed the true and material

facts from this Hon’ble Court and hence, they are not at all entitled to
 -: 2 :-

any relief, whatsoever.

6. That the present suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of

the court fees and jurisdiction and no proper court fee has been paid

on the plaint. The plaintiff is bound to pay advalorem court fee on the

amount, which he has claimed as compensation including interest

upto the date of filing of the suit, and hence, the plaint of the present

suit is liable to be rejected.

7. That the suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous and malafide and the

same has been filed by the plaintiffs just to extract hush money from

the defendants and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed and may

be dismissed with special cost under the provisions of section 35-A of

CPC.

Reply Parawise: -

1. That para no.1 of the plaint as stated is wrong and not admitted. It

is denied that there was any electric fire in the transfor in question. It is also

denied that the deceased Om Parkash informed any employee of defendants

about the alleged fire by telephone and it is also denied that attendants of the

defendants told him to cut off the electricity from the transformer to avoid

further explore of fire. It is also denied that Om Parkash tried to cut off the
 -: 3 :-

main electric supply on the alleged advice of any official of the defendants.

The real fact is this that the transformer was in off passion and the deceased

Om Parkash climbed on the transformer due to the reason not known to the

defendants and due to climbing on transformer, the deceased Om Parkash

was electrocuted by his own negligence and this is totally a pole mounting

accident and there is no fault of the defendants in this accident.

2. That para no.2 of the plaint is a matter of record. The plaintiff be

put to strict proofs to prove the contents of this para of the plaint by cogent

reliable and documentary evidence.

3. That para no.3 of the plaint is absolutely wrong and not admitted. It

is denied that the transformer in question of the defendants was poorly

maintained by the defendants and it is also denied that there usually comes

fire from the same and it is also denied that any complaint was made by any

of the villagers or deceased Om Parkash or plaintiff no.1 to the defendants

for repairing the said electric transformer as alleged. The alleged complaints

if any, are false, frivolous and concocted one. In fact, the transformer in

question was working properly and there was no defect in the same and it is

denied that there was any fire in the said transformer at any point of time.

The deceased Om Parkash electrocuted because of his own negligence as he

was climbing on the transformer.

4. That para no.4 of the plaint is correct to the extent that deceased

Om Parkash died due to electrocution because of his own negligence. Rest

contents of this para of the plaint are wrong and not admitted as correct. It is

denied that the there was any negligence on the part of the defendants. It is

also denied that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the compensation from the

defendants on any account.

5. That para no.5 of the plaint is wrong and not admitted as correct.

The entire averments as have been made in this para of the plaint are totally

false, frivolous and concocted one. It is denied that deceased Om Parkash

was having a very good health and physique and he was doing agricultural

work as well as work of milk vending and it is also denied that his monthly

income was more than Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) per month

and it is also denied that he used to contribute his entire earnings upon the

maintenance of the plaintiffs. It is also denied that the plaintiffs were fully

dependents upon the income of deceased Om Parkash and it is also denied

that they have with left no source of their livelihood and they have become

at the stage of starvation and their future have become in dark due to the

loss of the earning hand and it is also denied that education of the plaintiffs
 -: 5 :-

no.4 and 5 have also stopped. It is denied that the plaintiffs are entitled to

get Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac only) as compensation on account of the

sudden and untimely death of the deceased Om Parkash. On the contrary, it

is submitted that the deceased Om Parkash died due to electrocution because

of his own fault and negligence and as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to

claim any compensation from the respondents.

6. That para no.6 of the plaint is wrong and not admitted. The alleged

notice, if any, is based on false and frivolous allegations. The defendants are

not at all liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs as the death of the

deceased Om Parkash occurred due to his own negligence.

7. That para no.7 of the plaint is wrong and not admitted as correct.

The plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit. The cause of

action as alleged in this para of the plaint is false, frivolous and concocted

one.

8. That para no.8 of the plaint is legal.

9. That para no.9 of the plaint is a matter of record.

10. That para no.10 of the plaint is legal.

11. That para no.11 of the plaint is wrong and not admitted as correct.

The present suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of the court
 -: 6 :-

fees and jurisdiction and no proper court fee has been paid on the plaint. The

plaintiff is bound to pay advalorem court fee on the amount, which he has

claimed as compensation including interest upto the date of filing of the suit,

and hence, the plaint of the present suit is liable to be rejected.

12. That para no.12 of the plaint is wrong and not admitted. The suit of

the plaintiff is false, frivolous and malafide and hence, the same may kindly

be dismissed with costs, in the larger interest of justice.

Verification: - Defendants
Verified that all contents of P.Os.
and of paras no.1 to 9 and 12 of D.H.B.V.N.L., through Executive
Reply Parawise are correct to our Engineer, Palwal.
knowledge and paras no.10 & 11
are true to our belief.
Verified at Palwal
on

Through Counsel

L.R. Sorout, Advocate,