Gujarat High Court
P.G.V.C.L vs Devsinhbhai Arjanbhai Hadiya on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1918 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
P.G.V.C.L. & ANR.
Versus
DEVSINHBHAI ARJANBHAI HADIYA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by appellants-original defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2006 passed by learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Special Civil Suit No.50 of 2003.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. R.V. Acharya for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Anand M. Ranpara for learned advocate Mr. P.S. Champaneri for respondents. Perused the record.
Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:10:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1. Respondents herein original plaintiffs filed a suit for damages against the appellants herein original defendants by alleging that on 27.06.2001 when deceased Maheshkumar Devsinhbhai Hadiya was working in the field of Sharmanbhai Aalabhai, deceased got electrocution. Resultantly, deceased expired. Appellants appeared and filed Written Statement at Exhibit-30. Plaintiff No.1 examined himself at Exhibit-36.
Plaintiffs also examined two witnesses at Exhibits-41 and 49 namely Sharmanbhai Aalabhai and Devsibhai Jagmalbhai respectively and also produced documentary evidences in support of the claim. Defendant examined its Officer Vijaychandra Bhupendrabhai at Exhibit-54 and produced Rojkam prepared by defendants and the statements taken by defendants at Exhibits-55 and 56 respectively. Issues were framed at Exhibit-33. After considering the evidence, learned trial Court partly decreed the suit and directed appellants- Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:10:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined defendants to pay Rs.5,22,000/- to the plaintiffs along with interest @ 9% per annum.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, original defendants have filed the present First Appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that contentions raised by plaintiffs that deceased expired due to electrocution on 27.06.2001. However, there was no supporting line (Taniya) to the main Electric Pole and therefore, case put up by the plaintiffs that deceased came into contact with the said Taniya, does not stand on its footing. It is further contended that there is no evidence to establish the alleged fact that there existed Taniya with Electric Pole. Panchnama Exhibit-38 also finds no existence of Taniya on the place of incident. It is further contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that deceased has died Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:10:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined due to his sole negligence. It is further contended that learned trial Court has not considered the evidence that wires were passing through the main Electric Pole which was according to the Rules and Regulations of the Electricity Act and there was no wire hanging out from the main Electric Pole. The Rojkam prepred by the Officers of the Electricity Company also indicates that there was no supporting line (Taniya) connected with the main Electric Pole and therefore, in absence of any evidence, learned trial Court has committed an error by holding the appellants liable for compensation. So far as the income is concerned, plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence and therefore, the assessment of the earning of deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month is excessive. The rate of interest which has been awarded by leaned trial Court is also on the higher side. Except above, no other submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the appellants. Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:10:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondents has supported the judgment and decree and contended that there was ample evidence on record whereby the negligence has been attributed upon the appellants. It is further contended that on the date of incident, deceased was working at the field of Sharmanbhai Aalabhai along with other workers. While switching on the Electric Metre which was situated in the field of Sharmanbhai Aalabhai, deceased accidentally touched the Taniya which was in support of the Electric Pole. Due to faulty and defective electric wires, electric current was passing through the said Taniya, deceased got electric current whereby palms of deceased were burnt and during the treatment, deceased expired. The police complaint was filed by plaintiffs and panchnama Exhibit-38 was carried out wherein there is a specific mention about the existence of Taniya nearby the Electric Pole. This evidence clearly establishes a fact that there existed Taniya in support of the Electric Pole. In the Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:10:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined cross-examination of the witness of the appellants, witness has admitted a fact that wires were found in dilapidated condition and the longevity of wires were almost 22 to 25 years. The oral deposition of the said witness is sufficient in holding the appellants liable in not maintaining the electric appliances. Learned trial Court has considered the entire evidence in detail and thereafter decreed the suit. Except above, no other submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the respondents.
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and perused Record and Proceedings. An undisputed fact culls out from the record is that on 27.06.2001, deceased passed away due to electrocution. However, the only contention which has been raised by learrned advocate for the appellants is that there was no supporting line (Taniya) connected with the Electric Pole. It is also the defence of the appellants in the suit that since there Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:10:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined was no Taniya in existence, the case put by the plaintiffs that deceased got electric current through the Taniya falls flat. To meet with this contention, Exhibit-38 which is panchnama drawn by the police pursuant to the complaint registered by the relatives of the deceased, in clear terms indicates that Taniya was lying besides the electric Pole. In absence of any other material contrary to the fact that the electric Pole was supported by Taniya, I do not find any reason to disturb the finding which has been arrived at by learned trial Court. Moreover, the oral deposition of an eye-witness recorded at Exhibit-45 further strenghtens the case of the plaintiffs. The said witness in his deposition has stated that deceased came into contanct with Taniya through which electric power was leaking. The post mortem report produced at Exhibit-40 also states the casue of death 'electric current' (shot). It is the duty of the appellants to maintain electric appliances which are installed in either a public place or passing through the Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:10:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined properties of any owner. In the present case, appellants have not produced any iota of evidence to establish that the wires were duly maintained and were periodically inspected. The panchnama of the place of incident also reveals that the wires were not duly covered with PUC and the wires were in an open condition. This facttual position of the lying electric wires open is sufficient in establishing the negligence of appellants in not maintaining the electric appliances.
7. So far as the income of deceased is concerned, it is an undisputed fact that deceased was aged about 20 years on the date of incident and the plaintiffs claimed compensation of Rs.10,42,000/- with interest. As per the case of plaintiffs, deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month while working at the field of Sharmanbhai Aalabhai, learned trial Court in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to income of deceased, assessed the income at Rs.4,000/- per month, which in my view, is just and reasonable assessment. In Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:10:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined absence of any documentary evidence witth regard to income, the some guesswork is permissible in the cases where deceased is labourer doing a work of labour in the field. Even if the rates of minimum wages prevailing on the date of incident is considered, the rate would come to Rs.2,000/- per month.
8. Negligence in electrocution cases is often established through the failure of the electricity board or their officers in non-maintaining a high standard care in managing electrical infrastructure. Failure to repair or maintain equipment, resulting in accidents like electrocution, principle of strict liability is often applied because electricity is considered inherently Dangerous activity. Electricity providers have an utmost duty of care to ensure that lines and equipments are safe. This includes proper installation, maintenance and repair of all electrical infrastructure. If there is evidence of failure to meet these duties of care, it tentamounts to negligence on the Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:10:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined part of electricity provider. The breach of duty must have directly caused the electrocution. Broken high voltage wires, open or exposed, electrical wires, poor maintained polls or other infrastructure, lack of safety measures like warning signs where contact is possible are the instances of failure in taking utmost good care of electrical infrastructure and on proving such failures would invite a liability of compensating the victim or their legal representatives.
9. In Law of Torts, negligence means failure to exercise the standard of care that reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation, which results in harm or injury to another person. To prove negligence important elements such as a duty to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, causation and damages are to be established. In the present case, the evidence indicates that plaintiffs have succeeded on all four counts and the oral deposition of the appellant is sufficient evidence in holding the appellants liable for compensation. Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:10:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined
10. Considering the entire evidence, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings. As no contrary material could be pointed out by learned advocate for the appellants, whereby findings on negligence can be re-assessed, the First Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
11. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concened Court forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:10:37 IST 2025