Gujarat High Court
Ashaji Punjaji ... vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2536 of 1997
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ASHAJI PUNJAJI JADEJA,THRO'ITSGUARDIAN PUNJAJI J JADEJA
Versus
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SONA SAGAR(1778) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 18/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by appellant - original plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 04.06.1997 passed in Special Civil Suit No.154 of 1994 by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhuj.
Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vishal Mehta for learned advocate Mr.Mehul Shah for appellant - original plaintiff. Learned advocate for respondents remained absent.
3. Brief facts are as under:-
3.1 Plaintiff-appellant was working in the Gujarat Water Supply Board as a Lineman. On 26.06.1992, while the appellant was on duty at Ravapar Water Supply Line, he went near D.P. situated near water pump.At around 15.00 hours, while plaintiff was standing near D.P. and was waiting for wireman, his hand accidentally came into contact with a pole supporting a wire (Tania). Due to electric current passing through wire (Tania), supporting the pole, plaintiff received electric current and sustained serious Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined injuries on both hands, legs and other parts of the body. Plaintiff was admitted in G.K. General Hospital at Bhuj, where his both hands below the elbow, were amputated.
3.2 Plaintiff gave notice to defendants but defendants have not given any reply to the notice.
Therefore, plaintiff constrained to file the suit for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from defendants. Summon was served upon defendants, who filed Written Statement at Ex.65 and denied the claim of plaintiff. Issues were framed at Ex.19. Plaintiff led oral evidence and also examined the witness at Ex.59. Defendant also examined witness - Kanaiyalal Nagindas Daruwala at Ex.63. After considering the evidence on record, Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined learned trial Court partly allowed the suit directing defendant/s to pay compensation of Rs.2,12,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. 3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, appellant-plaintiff has filed the present First Appeal for enhancement of compensation.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of defendants. Because of electric shock, plaintiff sustained serious injuries on his body and both hands below the elbows were amputated. These injuries resulted in permanent and total disablement as well as disfigurement of body. Plaintiff was aged about Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined 19 years on the date of accident, and was earning Rs.1,500/- per month as salary. The witness of plaintiff, whose evidence is recorded at Ex.59, has stated that the plaintiff was paid Rs.29.85 paisa per day as salary and on the date of deposition i.e. in the year 1997 as per the Government rates, salary of plaintiff would have Rs.46/- per day. 4.1 It is further contended that the father of plaintiff was serving with the Water Supply Board on the same post and was drawing salary of Rs.1,100/- per month. Reliance is placed on the salary certificate at Ex.51. In absence of any other documentary evidence of income, Ex.51 is an evidence which could have been considered by learned trial Court in determining the income. It is further contended that Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the learned trial Court has erred in determining the income of plaintiff at Rs.900/- per month (Rs.29.85 per day x 30). It is contended that looking to the permanent disablement due to amputation of both hands below the elbow, plaintiff has lost his future earning capacity and functional disability ought to have been considered at 100%. The learned Court below has not properly considered the compensation under conventional head such as pain, shock and suffering and amenities of life.
4.2 It is contended that the multiplier adopted by learned trial Court is not proper considering the age of plaintiff. The multiplier ought to have been applied at 18. Considering the injuries, plaintiff has lost opportunity of maintaining himself as well as family Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined members and therefore functional disability ought to have been considered at 100%. It is further contended that while awarding compensation, learned trial Court has failed to grant any compensation towards future rise in income and appellants are entitled to 50% addition in income.
So far as the income of plaintiff is concerned, plaintiff would be satisfied if income is assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month. The certificate issued in favour of father of plaintiff also indicates that the salary of his father in the year 1993 was Rs.1,100/- p.m. who was serving in the same cadre with the same employer. Thus, monthly income ought to have been considered at Rs.1,500/- per month (Rs.1000/- + 50% future rise in income). Considering 100% disability and applying multiplier of 18, the annual loss of income of Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined plaintiff would come to Rs.3,24,000/-. Adding medical expenses of Rs.15,000/- and compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life, total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- be awarded. Except above, no other submissions are made by learned advocate for the appellant.
5. It is the case of defendants-respondents that the plaintiff himself was negligent in the occurrence of accident and that the defendants had taken due care in maintaining the electric pole with the wires attached to it. The compensation which has been claimed by plaintiff is on the higher side and there is no evidence with regard to holding the defendant negligent or with regard to income of plaintiff on the date of accident. Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant and perused the record and proceedings. The record indicates that the plaintiff has established that he sustained serious injuries, whereby, has lost both hands below the elbow, due to an accident caused by electrocution. So far as Issue No.4, which pertains to proving whether defendants have proved that the electric lines were maintained and periodically supervised. The record reveals that the respondents have except leading oral evidence have not produced any evidence with regard to the compliance of Rules framed under the Gujarat Electricity Rules. It is the duty of respondents to maintain the electric lines, wires and other equipments in such a manner as to ensure that no human life is put at risk. There is nothing on record to suggest that Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the defendants have taken due care in maintaining in electric lines. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly held issue No.4 against defendants.
As per the submission of learned advocate for appellant, present appeal is filed questioning the determination of income of plaintiff only. Since, the issue involved in the appeal is limited to the assessment of income, it would be relevant to consider the evidence of the Officer of Water Supply Board recorded at Ex.59. As per the deposition of the said witness, plaintiff was earning Rs.29.85 paisa per day. In the year 1997, the day on which the deposition was recorded, said witness has deposed that as per the Government rates, plaintiff would have earned Rs.46/- per day. The age of plaintiff on the date of accident was 19 years and was working as a lineman with the Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined Water Supply Board. The father of plaintiff was also working with the Water Supply Board, was drawing a salary of Rs.1,100/- per month in the year 1993, as per the certificate at Ex.51. Considering the age of plaintiff and the injuries he sustained including the amputation of both hands below the elbow, it is evident that plaintiff is entitled to reasonable compensation.
7. This Court is fully conscious about the fact that money will not give back the days, the days which plaintiff was enjoying before the date of accident. However, when the plaintiff has lost both hands below the elbow due to negligence and carelessness on the part of defendants, who have admitted their negligence by not challenging the Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined judgment, plaintiff is entitled for enhancement of compensation in light of the aforesaid facts. The compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering which was granted by learned Tribunal/Court at Rs.25,000/- is required to be increased to Rs.1,50,000/-. Furthermore, multiplier is required to be modified and it would be appropriate to apply a multiplier of 18 instead of 16. The plaintiff has undisputedly suffered permanent disability due to the loss of both hands below the elbow is undoubtedly the disability which would hamper his earning capacity in future. Applying the ratio of percentage of future rise in cases of the Motor Vehicles Act, plaintiff is entitled to 50% addition in income and functional disability is required to be assessed at 100%.
Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
8. In view of the above set of facts, the impugned judgment and decree is required to be modified to the following extent and the appellant is entitled to following additional amount of compensation:-
Head Compensation in Rs.
Future loss of income 3,24,000/-
Monthly income = Rs.1,000/-
Prospective income 50%
(Rs.1,000 + 50%) = Rs.1,500/-
Disability 100% = Rs.1,500/-
(Rs.1500x12 x 18) = Rs.3,24,000/-
Medical expenses 15,000/-
Pain, shock and suffering and 1,50,000/-
amenities of life
Total 4,89,000/-
awarded amount of compensation 2,12,800/-
by Tribunal
Enhanced amount 2,76,200/-
(Rs.4,89,000 - 2,12,800) =
Interest @12%
Page 13 of 15
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
9. The appellant - original plaintiff is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,76,200/- @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization from respondents - defendants.
10. The respondents - defendants are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with interest as above within a period of Six Weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Upon such deposition, it will be open to the plaintiff-appellant to approach the concerned Court/Tribunal for appropriate orders for withdrawal. Learned Tribunal/Court shall disburse the enhanced amount in favour of appellant after due identification and verification.
Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
11. The present First Appeal is partly allowed accordingly. The impugned judgment and decree dated 04.06.1997 passed in Special Civil Suit No.154 of 1994 by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhuj is accordingly modified to the aforesaid extent. Decree be drawn accordingly.
Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal.
(D. M. DESAI,J) MANOJ Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:13:50 IST 2025