Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer vs Heirs Of Decd. Bharatbhai Ravjibhai ... on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1785 of 2012
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 45 of 2013
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1785 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
Versus
HEIRS OF DECD. BHARATBHAI RAVJIBHAI SOLANKI & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
ADITI S RAOL(8128) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,2,3
MR DHARMESH V SHAH(1050) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. First Appeal No.1785 of 2012 is filed by the appellants (original defendants No.1 and 2) under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2012 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter be referred to as "the trial Court") in Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 2008 and Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 whereby the trial Court partly allowed Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 2008 filed by Chhatrasinh @ Satishbhai Solanki and awarded Rs.20,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% and partly allowed Special Civil Suit No.28 of 2008 filed by the legal heirs of Bharatbhai Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined Ravjibhai Solanki and awarded Rs.5,80,800/- along with the interest at the rate of 7.5%.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that one Shri Bharatbhai Ravjibhai Solanki was carrying out an agricultural activities in the farm of Shri Janardanbhai Maneklal Purohit and meanwhile, he came into contact with earthing wire attached to the electric pole, which was installed on the eastern side of his farm by Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Nadiad (M.G.V.C.L) and due to electrocution deceased slumped down. During the incident, the brother of deceased i.e. Chatrasinh @ Satishbhai Rajivbhai Solanki came to his rescue, but he was not succeeded in rescuing the deceased and he sustained severe burn injuries in the electrocution. Hence, Shri Chatrasinh @ Satishbhai Rajivbhai Solanki and legal heirs of deceased have preferred Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 2008 and Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 claiming damages.
3. Both the suits were heard and decided together whereby the trial Court framed the issues at Exhibit 20 in Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 2008 and at Exhibit 19 in Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008. The trial Court, after considering the facts of the case, has answered the issues in para - 16 of the judgment and decree. The trial Court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, has partly allowed the suits and awarded the compensation as aforesaid.
4. Being aggrieved, Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited has preferred the aforesaid first appeal challenging the judgment and decree recorded in Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 and not challenged the award passed in Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 2008. Since the Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited has not challenged the finding with regard to the issue of negligence as discussed by the trial Court in para - 25 of the judgment and Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined decree, the present appeal is arising out of the suit being Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 is barred of principle of constructing res judicata as the aspect of negligence is not challenged in the appeal. The contention raised by the appellants and the grounds agitated in the first appeal are not tenable in the eyes of law. Thus, the present first appeal filed the appellants is required to be dismissed.
5. So far as Cross Objection No. 45 of 2013 is concerned, the same is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the damage which has been awarded at Rs.5,80,800/- by the trial Court.
6. Heard Mr.Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the appellants of the first appeal and Mr.Ninad Shah, learned counsel for Ms.Aditi Raol, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3.
7. Mr.Dave, learned counsel would submit that the trial Court has passed the judgment and decree against the provisions of law and evidence on record and committed an error of facts and law. He would submit that the trial Court has not considered the fact that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased and the onus of establishing the negligence is upon the plaintiffs. He would further submit that the original contractor is responsible either directly or indirectly for the incident in question and therefore the appellants could not have been directed to pay the compensation. He would submit that though trial Court has held that there is no proof of income showing that deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month, on assumption and presumption, the trial Court has taken into consideration the income of deceased at Rs.3600/- per month and when there is no evidence of the income on record, the said income cannot be taken into consideration in awarding compensation. He would submit that the trial Court has awarded compensation contrary to the law laid down by Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the quantum of compensation is much higher than what actually could have been awarded. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be quashed and set aside and the cross objection filed by the otherside also deserves to be dismissed.
8. Mr.Shah, learned counsel would submit that the trial Court has committed an error in not awarding a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest and costs and future prospects of the deceased while computing quantum of compensation. He would submit that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month by driving different type of vehicles and Rs.5000/- by doing agricultural activities and hence, the trial Court has committed an error in considering monthly income of Rs.3600/- and not given cogent reason in coming to the conclusion that how the monthly income of the deceased is construed to be Rs.3600/-. He would also submit that the trial Court has committed an error in applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. He would further submit that the trial Court has not considered the fact that the deceased was 27 years and he left two minor children aged 12 and 7 years and parents aged 65 years and widow aged 29 years and hence, the trial Court, after considering the pitiable condition of the claimants, should have awarded damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of application till realization. Mr.Shah, learned counsel would submit that the amount awarded by the trial Court was not just and proper as it has not considered the age of the deceased viz-a-viz the income of the deceased and multiplier for damage was not properly applied. He would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court is not in consonance with the settled legal principle and thus, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 is modified to the extent. He Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined would lastly submit that the cross objection deserves to be allowed and the award of compensation deserves to be modified to the extent.
9. It is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and others, (2002) 2 SCC 162 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 as under:-
"7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human, being, who gets unknowingly trapped into if the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined particular harm by taking precautions.
9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English Common Law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands V/s. Fletcher (1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330), Blackburn J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision :
"The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."
10. There are seven exceptions formulated by means of case law to the doctrine of strict liability. It is unnecessary to enumerate those exceptions baring one which is this. "Act of stranger i.e. if the escape was caused by the unforeceable act of a stranger, the rule does not apply."
11. The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many subsequent decisions in England. A recent decision in recognition of the said doctrine is rendered by the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. V/s. Eastern Counties Leather Plc. (1994 (1) All England Law Reports (HL) 53). The said principle gained approval in India, and decisions of the High Courts are a legion to that effect. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu V/s. Union of India (1990 (1) SCC 613) and a Division Bench in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. V/s. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987 (3) SCC 234) had followed with approval the principle in Rylands V/s. Fletcher. By referring to the above two decisions a two Judge Bench of this Court has reiterated the same principle in Kaushnuma Begum V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001 (2) SCC 9)"
10. It is also profitable to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, (2014) 15 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para - 16 as under:-
"16. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has awarded compensation keeping all these aspects of the matter and has applied the guiding principle of multiplier method after adverting to the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121. for the purpose of computation of just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant which method should not have been applied to the case on hand, Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined particularly, having regard to the statutory negligence on the part of the respondents in not providing the safety measures to see that live electric wires should not fall on the roof of the building by strictly following the Rules to protect the lives of the public in the residential area. This Court in the case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha, (2014) 1 SCC 384, has deviated from following the multiplier method to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant in a medical negligence case. The same principle will hold good in the case on hand too. The following case law is followed by this Court in the above referred case, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant:
68. ........ three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Indian Medical Assn. v. V.P. Shantha, wherein this Court has categorically disagreed on this specific point in another case wherein "medical negligence" was involved. In the said decision, it has been held at para 53 that to deny a legitimate claim or to restrict arbitrarily the size of an award would amount to substantial injustice to the claimant.
*********
99. In Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. this Court at para 15 observed as under which got reiterated at SCC pp. 639- 40, para 13 of Ibrahim v. Raju:
"15. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2009) 13 SCC 422] this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below:
26. The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms.
27. The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another (sic situation) the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guesswork may be inevitable. That may be so.
XXX XXX XXX
46. In the Indian context several other factors should be taken into consideration including education of the dependants and the nature of job. In the wake of changed societal conditions and global scenario, future prospects may have to be taken into consideration not only having regard to the status of the employee, his educational qualification; his past performance but also other relevant factors, namely, the higher salaries and perks which are being offered by the private companies these days. In fact while determining the multiplicand this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben held that even dearness allowance and perks with regard thereto from which the family would have derived monthly benefit, must be taken into consideration.
47. One of the incidental issues which has also to be taken into consideration is inflation. Is the practice of taking inflation into consideration wholly incorrect- Unfortunately, unlike other developed countries, in India there has been no scientific study. It is expected that with the rising inflation the rate of interest would go up. In India it does not happen. It, therefore, may be a relevant factor which may be taken into consideration for determining the actual ground reality. No hard-and- fast rule, however, can be laid down therefor.' ********
101. .......................... he has also strongly placed reliance upon the observations made at para 170 in Malay Kumar Ganguly's case referred to supra wherein this Court has made observations as thus: (SCC p. 282) "170. Indisputably, grant of compensation involving an accident is within the realm of law of torts. It is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum. The said principle provides that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. (See Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co.)"
********** 103.1. In Ningamma's case, this Court has observed at para 34 which reads thus: (SCC p. 721) Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined "34. .......in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting 'just compensation' in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty-bound and entitled to award 'just compensation' irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not."
*********
112. The claimant has also placed reliance upon Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S.Dhananka's [(2009) 2 SCC 688] case in support of his submission that if a case is made out, then the Court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"88. We must emphasis that the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The 'adequate compensation' that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned."
Further in para 119, it is held ......this Court has rejected the use of multiplier system to calculate and award the quantum of compensation which must be just and reasonable. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereunder: (SCC para 92) "92. Mr Tandale, the learned counsel for the respondent has, further submitted that the proper method for determining compensation would be the multiplier method. We find absolutely no merit in this plea. The kind of damage that the complainant has suffered, the expenditure that he has incurred and is likely to incur in the future and the possibility that his [pic]rise in his chosen field would now be restricted, are matters which cannot be taken care of under the multiplier method." (emphasis supplied) Further under paragraph No. 121, the relevant paragraph from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan read as under: (SCC pp. 295-96, paras 20) "20. The court cannot be totally oblivious to the realities. The Second Schedule while prescribing the multiplier, had maximum income of Rs 40,000 p.a. in mind, but it is considered to be a safe guide for applying the prescribed multiplier in cases of higher income also but in cases where the gap in income is so wide as in Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined the present case income is 2,26,297 dollars, in such a situation, it cannot be said that some deviation in the multiplier would be impermissible. Therefore, a deviation from applying the multiplier as provided in the Second Schedule may have to be made in this case. Apart from factors indicated earlier the amount of multiplicand also becomes a factor to be taken into account which in this case comes to 2,26,297 dollars, that is to say, an amount of around Rs 68 lakhs per annum by converting it at the rate of Rs 30. By Indian standards it is certainly a high amount. Therefore, for the purposes of fair compensation, a lesser multiplier can be applied to a heavy amount of multiplicand. A deviation would be reasonably permissible in the figure of multiplier even according to the observations made in Susamma Thomas where a specific example was given about a person dying at the age of 45 leaving no heirs being a bachelor except his parents." (emphasis supplied) Further, in paragraph 177, it was held as under:-
"177. Under the heading of loss due to pain and suffering and loss of amenities of the wife of the claimant, Kemp and Kemp write as under:
"The award to a plaintiff of damages under the head "pain and suffering" depends as Lord Scarman said in Lim Poh Choo v. Camden and Islington Area health Authority, "upon the claimant's personal awareness of pain, her capacity of suffering. Accordingly, no award is appropriate if and in so far as the claimant has not suffered and is not likely to suffer pain, and has not endured and is not likely to endure suffering, for example, because he was rendered immediately and permanently unconscious in the accident. By contrast, an award of damages in respect of loss of amenities is appropriate whenever there is in fact such a loss regardless of the claimant's awareness of the loss."
XXX XXX XXX 'Even though the claimant may die from his injuries shortly after the accident, the evidence may justify an award under this head. Shock should also be taken account of as an ingredient of pain and suffering and the claimant's particular circumstances may well be highly relevant to the extent of her suffering. ..........' By considering the nature of amenities lost and the injury and pain in the particular case, the court must assess the effect upon the particular claimant. In deciding the appropriate award of damages, an important consideration show long will he be deprived of those amenities and how long the pain and suffering has been and will be endured. If it is for the rest of his life the court will need to take into account in assessing damages the Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined claimant's age and his expectation in life......." (emphasis supplied)
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the referred cases in paras 17 to 20 in the case of Raman (supra), which are extensively considered and granted just and reasonable compensation, in my considered view, the compensation awarded at Rs.10,00,000/-.
12. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and material placed on record and perused the impugned judgment and decree,, it appears that the cross objection is filed for enhancement of damage awarded by the trial Court at Rs.5,80,800/-. Mr.Shah, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shwetakumari Umeshkumar Shriwastawa and others Vs. Bhaiyaram Vidhiyachalsing and others in First Appeal No. 526 of 2012, which is relating to the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act where the compensation awarded is completely different than the amount awarded in the present case is a damage and it is as per the judgment of this Court. However, considering the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kalubhai Makwana Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij company Limited and others, 2023 (2) GLR 1344, the case of the claimants in Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 is concerned, the deceased was working as driver and he was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and though no sufficient proof with regard to income / working as driver before the trial Court, therefore, the trial Court has, after considering the agricultural income of the deceased, awarded the compensation. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that in absence of material evidence, the trial Court is right in justifying the income of the deceased, however, if this Court considers that even at the prevailing time of accident, minimum wage for unskilled labourer was at Rs.2600/- per month. The trial Court ought to have Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined considered 40% of Rs.2600/-, that would come to Rs.1040/-. Adding Rs.1040/- to Rs.2600/-, it would come to Rs.3640/-. Therefore, the additional compensation, treating the same as Rs.3640/- x 12 x 17, would come to Rs.7,42,560/-. Mr.Shah, learned counsel has stated before this Court that the total amount of compensation which was asked for, was Rs.10,00,000/- and, therefore, he restricts his case only qua the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
13. So far as the negligence is concerned, it is covered by the decision of this Court, the suit being Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 2008 is barred by res judicata as that part is not challenged by the appellants by filing an appeal and, therefore, it was concluded. Considering the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kalubhai Makwana (supra), this Court has decided the similar issue in First Appeal No.470 of 2012 vide order dated 17.06.2025 and First Appeal No.5292 of 2008 vide order dated 04.08.2025.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the trial Court was not right in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.5,80,800/-. Under the circumstances, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2012 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 is hereby modified and it is declared that the claimants would be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.4,11,200/- (Rs.10,00,000/- - Rs.5,80,800/-). The appellants of the first appeal are directed to deposit the additional compensation of Rs.4,11,200/- before the concerned Court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and on deposit of the same, an additional compensation of Rs.4,11,200/- shall be paid to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the suit till its realization, after verifying their bank details through RTGS / NEFT. The said additional amount shall be paid to the Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined claimants in following terms:-
50% in favour of Sangitaben Wd/o. Bharatbhai Ravjibhai Solanki 15% in favour of Prakashbhai Bharatbhai Solanki 15% in favour of Ashishbhai Bharatbhai Solanki 10% in favour of Ravjibhai Motibhai Solanki 10% in favour of Dariyaben W/o. Ravjibhai Motibhai Solanki
15. In view of the above, First Appeal No. 1785 of 2012 stands dismissed.
Cross Objection No.45 of 2013 is allowed in part. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith.
Pending civil application/s shall stand disposed of accordingly. Interim relief, if any, granted stands vacated forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:54:20 IST 2025