Gujarat High Court
Paschim Gujarat Vij Co Ltd Thro' Chief ... vs Ranamalbhai Nongaji Chavda Deceased ... on 2 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3546/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3546 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 2 of 2011
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3546 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD THRO' CHIEF ENGINEER & ORS.
Versus
RANAMALBHAI NONGAJI CHAVDA DECEASED THROUGH HEIRS & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR VH KANARA(1881) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.3,1.4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 02/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 at the instance of the appellants - Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khambhalia (herein after referred to as "the trial court") in Special Civil Suit No. 55 of 2009, whereby, the learned Judge partly allowed the suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents herein and passed the order as under :
Plaint of the plaintiffs is partly allowed as follows.Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 21:28:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3546/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined (1) It is held that defendants herein are liable to pay Rs.4,50,000/-
(rupees four lakh fifty thousand only) on account of death of husband of plaintiff No.1, father of plaintiff No.2, son of plaintiff No.3, 4 Ranmalbhai Nondhabhai, which has caused due to electric shock.
(2) It is further held that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive annual 8% interest on the above amount from the defendants from the date of suit till recovery of the amount.
(3) Defendants may deposit the amount of compensation in the court within 60 days. If the defendants fail to do so, plaintiffs shall be entitled to get annual interest @ 10% from the date of order till recovery of compensation amount.
(4) Plaintiffs have preferred present suit in insolvent condition. Thus when the compensation is deposited in the court, first appropriate court fee may be recovered and the plaintiffs be given the remaining amount as per following details.
(5) Plaintiff No.3 and 4 are entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each, totaling to Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendants herein. 50% amount may be put in fixed deposit for not less than six years in the name of plaintiff No.3, 4 in a nationalized bank and the remaining 50% amount may be paid to the plaintiff No.3, 4 by way of account payee cheque.
(6) It is held that plaintiff No.1 and 2 are entitled to receive 50% each of the amount remaining after above computation. 50% of the amount receivable by plaintiff No.1 as compensation may be put in fixed deposit for not less than six years in a nationalized bank and the remaining 50% amount may be paid to the plaintiff No.1 by way of account payee cheque.
(7) 75% of the amount receivable by plaintiff No.2 may be put in fixed deposit till he attains majority and the remaining 25% amount be paid to plaintiff No.1 by account payee cheque in the capacity of guardian of plaintiff No.2.
(8) Plaintiffs can take the periodical interest accrued on the above F.D. amounts. However, plaintiffs cannot withdraw the F.D. amounts during its term nor can they avail loan thereon.
(9) Considering the facts of the present case, defendants would bear the cost of present suit and pay the cost to the plaintiff. Decree may be drawn as per order.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :
2.1 The respondent No. 1 is wife of deceased Ranmalbhai Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 21:28:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3546/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined Nodhabhai Chavda, respondent No. 2 is minor daughter and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are mother and father of the deceased respectively. It is alleged in the plaint that on 30.09.2007, deceased Ranmalbhai Nodhabhai Chavda was working in his field. At the same time, there was leakage of electric power from the overhead line pole which was installed in the earth for electric connection, due to which, victim came in connection with electric power and got electric shock, due to which, he died on the same day. At the time of incident, he was aged about 22 years and he was younger, hardworking farmer and due to his death the respondents suffered from financial loss of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Respondent No. 1 had lost her husband in the younger age, respondent No. 2 lost his father whereas respondent Nos. 3 and 4 lost their support of old age. That, respondents had issued a legal notice to the appellants seeking compensation with regard to accident on 27.09.2008; however, the same was not complied by the appellant Company and no amount of compensation was given to the respondents. That, the appellant Company did not take care after installing electric connection which was passing from the field of the deceased, due to which, Ranmalbhai Nondhabhai Chavda met with an accident and died and, therefore, the respondents had filed he suit seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- and interest @ 12% till final disposal of the suit.
2.2 That, after service of summons, the appellants had filed their written statements at Exh.-14 denying all the allegations made in the plaint and also contended that the accident as Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 21:28:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3546/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined mentioned in the plaint is to be proved by producing strict oral as well as documentary evidence and denied all the facts stated in the plaint and they had also denied their liability to pay compensation.
2.3 That, after considering the pleadings of both the sides, the trial court had framed the issues at Exh.-17 referred in para-3, which were answered in para-4. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the sides and after considering the decisions referred and relied upon by both the sides, the trial court has allowed the suit in favour of the respondents - original plaintiffs and passed the order as aforesaid vide its judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khambhalia in Special Civil Suit No. 55 of 2009, the appellants - PGVCL has preferred the present appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, appearing for the appellants - PGVCL and learned advocate Mr. V.H. Kanara, appearing for the respondents - original plaintiffs.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Hasurkar has submitted that the trial court without considering the records and the evidence produced before it has exceeded the jurisdiction and thus, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is erroneous, illegal and unjust. He would submit that thought the Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 21:28:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3546/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined appellants have filed their documentary evidence and examined one witness at Exh.-47 and produced relevant documents, however, without considering the same, the trial court while passing the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the respondents has committed a serious error of law and on facts both. He would further submit that there was no relevant documentary evidence produced by the respondents before the trial court with regard to the income of the deceased and thus, the trial court has exceeded the jurisdiction and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- which is on very higher side. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned counsel Mr. Hasurkar has urged that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court be quashed and set aside.
6. as against that, learned counsel Mr. Kanara, appearing for the respondents - original plaintiffs, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is in consonance with the facts of the case and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence which is discussed by the trial court and after fully explaining the circumstances before the trial court by way of oral evidence, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the respondents and no interference is required to be called for in the present appeal and the present appeal be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 21:28:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3546/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined respective parties and perused the material placed on record.
The issue involved in the present appeal is that, whether the trial court has committed an error while passing the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the respondents or not, whether the trial court has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the sides and wile appreciating the evidence has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree or not, whether the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the respondents is just and adequate or not.
8. On perusal of he impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court it appears that, the trial court has referred and relied upon the oral as well as documentary evidence referred in para-5 and 7 and recorded the findings from para- 12 onwards that the deceased was working in his agricultural field and because of leakage of the electric power from the overhead line pole which was installed in the earth for electric connection, the deceased got electric shock and died. That, jurisdictional police was informed and one Janva Jog entry with regard to the accidental death was registered, which was produced at Exh.-29, a xerox copy of an entry registering an accident being Accident No.47/07 of Karabhai Nondhabhai Chavda was produced at Exh.-30, panchanama of place of offence at Exh.-31, inquest panchnama at Exh.-32, post mortem report at Exh.-33 in support of the say of the respondents. The trial court has discussed all these evidence in detail in para-12 of the impugned judgment and it was observed that there was no contrary evidence or material Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 21:28:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3546/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined produced by the appellants and therefore, issue no.1 was decided in favour of the respondents. Issue nos.2 and 5 were decided together by the trial court, wherein, it was observed that there were repeated complaints made by the villagers of village Nandana to shift the T.C. wire of Kala Vira and also to keep the line in proper condition as it was not properly maintained by the appellants and no maintenance work was done. One of the complaint dated 10.10.2006 made by the villagers was also produced on record before the trial court at Exh.-34 and even the written submissions were also produced at Exh.-35 and 36. The trial court has also discussed the evidence of Executive Engineer Hebhabhai Karshanbhai Nandaniya who has deposed at Exh.-47 and has admitted that no action was taken on the written representation made by the villagers Nandana village and thus, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial court has discussed the issue nos.2 and 5 in detail and decided the same in affirmative.
8.1 On perusal of the averments made in the plaint and on perusal of the documentary evidence made part of the Record & Proceedings and on examining the same, it appears that the trial court after evaluating the oral evidence recorded of one Nondhabhai Khimabhai Chavda, father of the deceased at Exh.-24, who was also cross-examined, however, there was no contrary facts came on record and no adverse culled out from his deposition. From his evidence, the documentary evidence which are discussed by the trial court in para-12 of the impugned judgment viz., Janva Jog entry with regard to the Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 21:28:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3546/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined accidental death produced at Exh.-29, a xerox copy of an entry registering an accident being Accident No.47/07 of Karabhai Nodhabhai Chavda produced at Exh.-30, panchanama of place of offence at Exh.-31, inquest panchnama at Exh.-32, Post Mortem report at Exh.-33, representation dated 10.10.2006 made by the villagers at Exh.-34 and even the written submissions produced at Exh.-35 and 36, which clearly establish that the deceased Ranmalbhai had died due to electrocution. Moreover, the Post Mortem report also reveals that the cause of death was electrocution and thus, all these facts supported the case of the respondents. The documentary evidence also reveals that the said aspect was not controverted by the witness from the appellant Company while he was placed in the witness box examined at Exh.-47 and thus, the trial court while passing the impugned judgment and decree has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants are solely responsible and negligent and because of their negligency, the accident had occurred and therefore, after considering all these facts, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the respondents. On perusal of the Record & Proceedings the fact also reveals that the trial court, while discussing the issue nos.3, 4 and 6 with regard to the income of the deceased, has considered that the land was belonging to the father of the deceased Nondha Khima and abstract of the revenue record was produced at Exh.-37, which shows that the deceased was doing agricultural work in the said field and he was residing with his parents in joint family i.e. respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. Thus, since he was cultivating land with his father, due Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 21:28:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3546/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined to death of the son, the parents had suffered loss of income that can be earned by an adult person and, therefore, the trial court has considered the minimum wages prevailing at that relevant point of time and has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and thus, while considering the issue nos.3, 4 and 6, the trial court has rightly appreciated the income of the deceased and as the appellants had not filed any cross objection and they had accepted the amount as awarded by the trial court, no further discussion is required to be made in this regard and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
8.2 At this juncture, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and Others, reported in [2002] 2 SCC 162, in case of Raman vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., reported in [2014] 15 SCC 1 as well as the decision of this Court passed in First Appeal No.470 of 2012 decided in 17.06.2025.
9. In view of aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, I am in complete agreement with the judgment and award passed by the trial court. I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the present appeal and the same is required to be dismissed.
10. For the foregoing reasons, present appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 21:28:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3546/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khambhalia in Special Civil Suit No. 55 of 2009, is hereby confirmed. Interim relief, if any stands vacated forthwith.
11. The amount deposited by the appellant before the trial court concerned is ordered to be disbursed in favour of respondents - original plaintiffs as apportioned by the trial court alongwith interest @ 10% from the date of filing of suit till realization, after proper verification and after following due procedure through RTGS/NEFT, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of present order. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs.
12. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith.
13. In view of the dismissal of the main First Appeal, the connected civil application/s also stands disposed of.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 21:28:57 IST 2025