Gujarat High Court
Deputy Executive Engineer vs Mansukhbhai Vashrambhai Nakum on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1203 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
Versus
MANSUKHBHAI VASHRAMBHAI NAKUM & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR RC KAKKAD(389) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2010 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khambhaliya (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") in Special Civil Suit No.35 of 2005, whereby the trial Court has directed present appellants to pay Rs. 4,58,800/- with 8% interest p.a. to the claimants.
Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:25:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that on 13.09.2003 when the deceased was working in the field of his uncle namely Natvarbhai Vasrambhai at that point of time, he came in contact with one electric pole and got electrocution. Due to the said incident he died. 2.1 Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. father and mother of the deceased had filed Special Civil Suit No.35 of 2005 before the trial Court. 2.2 The trial Court after hearing both the sides and after evaluating the evidence placed on record by both the sides passed impugned judgment and award dated 31.07.2010.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the original opponents before the trial Court have filed preset appeal.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:25:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined
3. Heard Mr. Dipak Dave learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. R.C. Kakkad learned advocates for the respondents.
4. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has not considered the facts of the present case in its true and proper spirit, while passing the impugned judgment and decree in favour of original plaintiffs. He has submitted that the trial Court has also committed an error while calculating the quantum of damages awarded in favour of the original plaintiffs. Learned advocate for the appellants also submitted that the trial Court measurably failed to appreciate the fact that the accident was occurred due to negligence on part of the deceased and there was no fault on part of the appellants.
4.1 In view of the above submissions, learned advocate for the appellants urges before the Court that present appeal may be allowed and impugned judgment and Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:25:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined decree passed by the trial Court may be quashed and set aside.
5. As against that Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate for the respondents has submitted that the trial Court after evaluating the evidence and material produced before it has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of claimants. He has submitted that it is the sole responsibility and liability of the appellants to secure the safety of the public at large and the appellants have failed to secure the safety of the public at large. He has also submitted that the trial Court observed that at the place of occurrence, the transformer was not kept in proper and secure manner and therefore, the electrocution was occurred and because of that the deceased died and evidence in this regard had also come on record of the trial court and therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the original claimants.
Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:25:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined 5.1 Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of this Court dated 17.6.2025 passed in First Appeal No.470 of 2012, wherein this Court has observed that it is the duty of the appellant-electric company to maintain electric lines/cables and other electric equipment and it is also the duty of the appellants to check the same periodically and take appropriate steps to secure the safety measures of the said electric equipment.
6. I have perused the relevant material and documents placed on record. I have also examined the record and proceedings and gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
7. It appears that the trial Court, while dealing with the issue Nos. 1, 2 and 5 has rightly considered the fact with regard to the negligence on the part of the present appellants.
Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:25:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined
8. The trial Court has after considering the relevant material and documents, framed the issues at Exh.16 which reads as under:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs' son Mahendra died on 13.9.2003 due to electric shock?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the incident of electric shock to plaintiffs' son occurred due to the negligence on part of the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation from defendants?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs are entitled to get interest on the amount due from the defendants till it is recovered?
5. Whether the defendants prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence on part of the deceased Mahendra?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
7. What order and decree?
9. It appears that out of seven issues, the trial Court has, in six issues answered affirmative and issue No.5 answered negative and thereafter, the trial Court discussed oral and documentary evidence, referred in paragraph No.5, at length. Thereafter, the Court has discussed the issue No.1, 2 and 5 in paragraph No. 12 of the judgment at length with regard to fault and liability on part of the appellants and accordingly, on the basis of Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:25:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined that, the trial Court considered quantum of damages. The relevant discussion was also made in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment and decree and after considering all theses relevant facts and considering the age of the deceased, the trial Court considered claim of determination in favour of present respondents, which according to my view, does not warrant any interference by this Court.
9.1 In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the claimants. There is no infirmity or illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
10. The amount which is deposited by the appellants and lying with trial Court shall be disbursed in favour of the respondents-original claimants and if part amount is already withdrawn by the original claimants, the Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:25:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined remaining amount which is lying with concerned trial Court shall be disbursed in favour of the respondents - original claimants along with interest accrued on it, after due verification and after following due process through R.T.G.S. / N.E.F.T. within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the present order.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 31.07.2010 passed by trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.35 of 2005 is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs. Record and proceedings 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 Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:25:48 IST 2025