Gujarat High Court
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited vs Shobhaben Tribhovanbhai on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 67 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 2 of 2010
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 67 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
SHOBHABEN TRIBHOVANBHAI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2.1,2.3,2.4,2.5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL:-
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by appellants-original defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar in Special Civil Suit No.181 of 1999.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah for the respondents.
Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
3.1 It is the case of the plaintiffs-respondents herein that deceased-Tribhovanbhai Shamjibhai on 09.06.1998 while passing on the road and due to cyclone, main electric line passing through the main bazar all of a sudden broke down and as a result, it fell down on the deceased who died due to electric shock. The accidental death was regisrtered in Botad Police Station vide Entry No.17 of 1998. Notice dated 06.10.1998 was issued by plaintiffs to the defendants. Deceased was aged about 30 years at the relevant point of time and according to the case of plaintiffs, deceased was a worker working as a dimond cutting and was earning from the agricultral work also. The income of deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month as per the case of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs being the legal heirs of deceased filed a suit for recovery of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs with interest @12% per annum. Defendants were duly served with the summons.
Defendants appeared and filed Written Statement at Exhibit-11. Plaintiff examined herself at Exhibit-23 and also examined a Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined witness Dungarshibhai Shamjibhai Tejani at Exhibit-32. Plaintiffs also produced copy of complaint, panchnama, post mortem report and other documentary evidences in support their claim. Defendants examined its witness Jigneshbhai Balvantrai Upadhyay at Exhibit-51. After considering the evidence on record, the suit of the plaintiffs came to be partly decreed directing defendants to pay compensation of Rs.4,89,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization. 3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, appellants-defendants have filed the present First Appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants at the outset contended that there is no negligence on the part of appellants as due to cyclonic condition on 09.06.1998 the main electric line fell down on the deceased which resulted into an unfortunate death of deceased-Tribhovanbhai Shamjibhai. It is further contended that plaintiffs have not led any evidence with regard Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined to alleged negligence on the part of appellants. In absence of any proof with regard to the income, learned trial Court has erred in holding the income of deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month which is unreasonable and unjust. It is further contended that learned trial Court has not adopted rates of minimum wages prevailing on the date of incident and has considered the higher income than the deceased was entitled to. It is further contended that the incident is of an "Act of God" and therefore no negligence can be attributed on the part of appellants in the occurrence of accident. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and decreed the suit.
5. On the other hand, it is the case of the respndents-plaintiffs that taking into consideration Rule 29 and 50(1)(f) of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956, duty is cast upon the appellant-Company to take adequate measure so as to see that no live wires are exposed. It is also the case of the respondents that on the date of incident, main electric line passing through the main bazar broke down and fell on the deceased and because of the electric Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined current, deceased who was aged about 30 years passed away. Deceased was in the work of diamond cutting activity and was also earning out of agricultral work. The income of deceased was at Rs.5,000/- per month. Plaintiffs have also examined the employer with whom deceased was working. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that despite notice dated 06.10.1998 issued by the plaintiffs, defendants did not reply to such notice and therefore plaintiffs were constranined to file the suit for compensation. It is further contended that falling down of live wires from main electric line clearly indicates negligence on the part of defendants. Except above, no other submissions are made by learned advocate for the appellants.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties and also perused Record and Proceedings. From the record, it is coming out that the fact of occurrence of the incident and the fact of death of deceased are not in dispute. The only question which has been raised by learned advocate for the appellants is with regard to attributing Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined negligence upon the appellants. In the Written Statement, it is a positive assertion made by appellants that the appellants are maintaining the electric line with due care and caution and the electric lines are being maintained periodically. Since the falling down of live electric line on the deceased due to cyclonic condition, is an "Act of God" and for that, appellants cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation under the head of negligence. To test this contention, a reference is to be noted from the cross-examination of witness of appellants whose evidence is recorded at Exhibit-51. In the corss-examination, a specific question is put to the witness of appellants with regard to the fact as to when did electric lines were maintained last? A very shocking and irresponsible reply is given by the witness of appellants. The said witness replied that since the incident is of 1998, the office record might have been destroyed in the year 2000. If this is the fact and the stand of the appellant in connection with the case of negligence, the conduct and approach of the appellants is too casual. It is also an undisputed Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined fact that before the institution of the suit, plaintiffs had issued a legal notice dated 06.10.1998, appellants have rightly been held negligent. The appellants are bound to have the record of periodical visits reports and the maintenance carried out of the electric lines, wires etc. Appellants are not expected to destroy the office record when the civil proceedings are pending before the Court wherein appellants have been alleged to have remained negligent. Even the Rules framed under the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 more particularly, Rules 29 and 50(1)(f) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 mandates that construction, installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric supply and the apparatus. Rules 29(1) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 is reproduced as under:
"29. Construction, installation, protenction, operation and maintenance of electric supply and the apparatus (1) All electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient ratings for power, insulation and estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty which they may be required to perform under the environmental conditions of installation, and shall be constructed, installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property."
Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined Rule 50(1)(f) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 is reproduced as under:-
"50. Supply and use of energy. (1) The energy shall not be supplied, transformed, converted or used or continued to be supplied, transformed, converted or used unless provisions as set out below are observed:-
(a) to (e). ******.
(f) adequate precautions shall be taken to ensure that no live parts are so exposed as to cause danger."
7. Rule 50(1)(f) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 envisages adequate precautions shall be taken to ensure that no live parts are so exposed as to cause danger. It is the duty of appellant to ensure safety of human beings and the properties of human beings in seeing that any human being or property of human being is not being damaged due to inaction or negligence on the part of appellants. Learned trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has righlty held appellants liable and the appellants could not point out any contrary material whereby, appellants can be absolved from the liability to compensate the legal heirs of deceased person.
8. So far as the income of deceased is concerned, the oral deposition of the employer who has been examined by plaintiffs Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined at Exhibit-32 clearly indicates that deceased was doing the work of diamond crushing at the workplace owned by the witness Dungarshibhai Shamjibhai Tejani. Learned trial Court while awarding the compensation has not considered the compenation qua conventional heads. Even if the minimum rates of wages prevailing on the date of incident is considered which was at Rs.1,600/- per month, adding the prospective income at 40% and other conventional heads, the compenation would come to almost the same which has been granted by learned trial Court.
9. Considering the evidence and other material available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings arrived at by learned trial Court. Resutanlty, First Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
10. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court / Tribunal forthwith.
Order in Civil Application:-
1. This Civil Application for additional evidence under Order Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed by the applicants-original appellants.
2. Appellants have also filed an application seeking additional evidence. However, considering the application as well as the documents which are sought to be produced as additional evidence, it is not the contention of appellants-
applicants that the documents sought to be produced were not either within their knowledge or possession during trial. It is not the case of the appellants that the learned trial Court did not permit appellants to produce evidence which is sought to be produced before this Court. Since the application for seeking additional evidence is outside the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also rejected.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:28 IST 2025