Gujarat High Court
Goswami Rajpuri Shivpuri vs State Of Gujarat on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2113/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2113 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
GOSWAMI RAJPURI SHIVPURI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VATSAL M PATEL FOR MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2,3
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellants - claimants - original plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 under the provision of section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.3.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dhanghdra (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") in Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2003, whereby the trial Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- along Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:25:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2113/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined with 9% interest in favour of original plaintiffs.
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that on 19.6.2003, one Mr. Hemendrapuri Goswami son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, husband of respondent No.4 and father of respondent No.3 sustained fatal electrocution near a dormitory situated adjacent to the primary school. While passing by, he came into contact with an electric wire lying on the road, resulting in his electrocution. He was immediately taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. A post-mortem examination was conducted, and the police recorded a panchnama of the place of occurrence.
2.1 On the basis of the said panchnama, the appellants, along with respondent Nos. 4 have filed suit for damages and prayed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation for the untimely death of deceased Hemendrapuri Goswami.
2.2 In response, the respondents had filed the written statement before the trial Court. After considering the pleadings, the trial Court framed issue at Exhibit 8, as referred to in paragraph 3, and answered the same in paragraph 4. Upon examining the documentary as well as oral evidence led by the original plaintiffs, as referred to in paragraph 6, the trial Court concluded that the original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were liable to pay compensation, holding that there was serious negligence on the part of Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:25:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2113/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined original defendant Nos. 1 to 3.
2.3 The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, observed in Issue No. 1, as discussed in paragraph 13, that the respondents were solely negligent and that the accident occurred due to their negligence, resulting in the death of deceased.
2.4 With regard to the income of deceased, it was stated in the plaint as well as deposed through oral evidence by the appellants-original plaintiffs that deceased jointly owned agricultural land with his father, admeasuring 11 acres and equipped with an irrigation facility. From such agricultural activities, deceased was earning approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum.
2.5 The deceased was also employed as a priest in the village temple, earning an additional Rs. 50,000/- per annum. However, the trial court failed to properly appreciate the said evidence while determining the income of deceased and, consequently, awarded a substantially lesser amount of compensation. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation amount.
3. Heard Mr. Vatsal M. Patel, learned counsel for Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Ms. Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:25:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2113/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined Roshni Patel, learned AGP for the respondent State.
3.1 Learned counsel Mr.Vatsal M. Patel, appearing on behalf of learned counsel Mr. R.J. Goswami for the appellants, contended that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate both the oral and documentary evidence while passing the judgment and decree, thereby awarding a sum of only Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is submitted that the trial Court has also erroneously discarded the income certificate issued by the village panchayat, which was duly produced on record, merely on the ground that the original copy was produced by the appellants but the same was not produced through the concerned witness -- the Sarpanch of the village, who was examined as PW-2, Exhibit 35.
3.2 He has further submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is erroneous, illegal, and unjust, and therefore requires modification to the extent prayed for. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased was only 30 years of age, and hence, the proper multiplier ought to have been applied. Instead, the trial court overlooked this material fact and awarded a meagre sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.
3.3 It is further contended that, despite the appellants having produced sufficient evidence, the trial court failed Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:25:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2113/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined to properly appreciate the same while awarding compensation. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court ought to be modified to the appropriate extent.
3.4 It is also contended that the trial Court, without properly considering the material facts and merely on the basis of guesswork, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-, without undertaking any proper calculation. While awarding such compensation, the trial Court failed to appreciate the relevant material produced before it. In light of these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant emphatically submits that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court set aside or suitably modified.
4. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Hasurkar appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and contended that the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree, and therefore, no interference is warranted. He submitted that no authentic material evidence was produced by the appellants- plaintiffs before the trial court with regard to the income or the age of the deceased, and hence, the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and decree.
Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:25:02 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2113/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined 4.1 It is further submitted that present respondent No.4, being the wife of the deceased, subsequently married another person after her husband's death and is now residing at her second husband's place. She is not residing with the present appellants Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, after considering all these facts, the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree, and no interference is called for.
5. I have perused the material and documents available on record. I have also gone through the record and proceedings as well as impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
6. The trial Court has observed that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the respondents, and accordingly, the verdict was rendered against them. However, insofar as the awarding of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is concerned, there was no detailed discussion in the judgment as to the basis of computation, the application of an appropriate multiplier, or the consideration of established heads of compensation under settled principles of law. The trial court failed to adequately evaluate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant regarding the deceased's income, age, and future prospects. It is well settled that in claims arising out of negligence, just and reasonable compensation must be determined by taking into account Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:25:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2113/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined the earning capacity of the deceased, the dependency of the claimants, and other relevant factors, rather than on mere guesswork.
7. In view of the above discussion, in my considered opinion, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in part, and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court require modification to that extent. Furthermore, insofar as the finding on negligence is concerned, the respondents have not challenged the same, and therefore, it has attained finality.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced, and an appropriate sum of Rs.7,50,000/- is hereby awarded in place of Rs.3,00,000/-. This enhancement is considered necessary after a thorough evaluation of the material placed on record, including the oral and documentary evidence regarding the age, occupation, and income of the deceased. The figure now awarded reflects a more realistic and just assessment of the financial loss suffered by the dependents.
9. The remaining amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- shall be deposited by the respondents-original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as awarded by the trial court, from the date of Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:25:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2113/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined filing of the suit until realisation.
10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.3.2011 passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2003 stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The present appeal is partly allowed. Record and proceedings, if received, to be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:25:02 IST 2025