Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited vs Shankarbhai Prabhubhai Bramhan

                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




        C/SA/30/2010                                ORDER DATED: 21/09/2023

                                                                                     undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 30 of 2010

                                   With
                CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2010
                     In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 30 of 2010
==========================================================
                       UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED
                                    Versus
                       SHANKARBHAI PRABHUBHAI BRAMHAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                                Date : 21/09/2023

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 26.03.1999 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (SD) Palanpur in Special Civil Suit No. 63 of 1988 and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer and 5th Fast Track Court of Palanpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2009, the appellant has preferred present Second Appeal.

2. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Company has submitted that in absence of any positive evidence of negligence, the courts below were not justified in awarding the amount of compensation. He has further submitted that the interest 12% would be on higher side and therefore, necessary order may be passed.

                                    Page 1 of 3

                                                         Downloaded on : Tue Sep 26 20:34:21 IST 2023
                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SA/30/2010                               ORDER DATED: 21/09/2023

                                                                                 undefined

3. On the other hand Mr. Ankit Bachani, learned advocate has submitted that, the Appeal is still not admitted as there is no substantial question of law involved and on that ground, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4. The respondent plaintiff at the tender age sustained injuries due to electrocution as the appellate authority and its officers were negligent in maintaining the electricity line in a proper manner. The learned Civil Court before whom the Civil Suit for compensation was being filed, had decreed the suit and appellant was directed to pay Rs.60,000/- at the rate of 12%. In Appeal, challenging the amount of compensation, the Appellate Court, by upholding the decree, was pleased to dismiss the appeal. The appellant - original defendant has preferred present Second Appeal. In the appeal memo, following substantial question of law have been formulated.

(a) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the burden of proof that there was no negligence on the part of the Board in maintaining the electricity line is upon the Board?

(b) Whether the Courts below were justified in passing the order of compensation in absence of any positive evidence showing negligence on the part of the Board in maintenance of electricity line?

(c) Whether the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit with 12% interest without recording reasons for the awarding interest?

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/30/2010 ORDER DATED: 21/09/2023 undefined

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the case records, this Court is of the considered view that, no any substantial question of law involved in the present case. Interference with the finding of fact is not warranted, if it involves, re appreciation of evidence and High Court cannot reverse the concurrent findings of the lower court under ordinary circumstances. Thus, therefore, considering the smallness of the amount and concurrent findings on facts of the courts below, this Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, so far, amount of compensation is concerned. With the consent of both the parties, the interest rate is being modified. The appellant shall pay the decreetal amount of compensation at the rate of 9% instead of 12%. Accordingly, the appellant shall deposit the amount with the interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount. If amount is deposited, then, the difference of interest amount be refunded to the appellant. The trial Court shall disburse the entire amount in favour of the respondent - plaintiff without making further investment in the FDR.

6. With this modification, present appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

7. In view of order passed in Second Appeal, no order in Civil Application and is disposed of accordingly.

(ILESH J. VORA,J) P.S. JOSHI Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 26 20:34:21 IST 2023