Gujarat High Court
Madhya Gujarat Vij Co Ltd vs Bhupendra Ranjitsinh Jadav on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3461 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD & ORS.
Versus
BHUPENDRA RANJITSINH JADAV
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR NILESH PANDYA FOR MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Defendant(s) No.
1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 at the instance of the appellants -
Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2011
passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Godhra
(herein after referred to as "the trial court") in Special Civil Suit
No. 59 of 2008, whereby, the learned Judge partly allowed the
suit filed by the respondent herein and directed the appellant
MGVCL to pay damages to the tune of Rs.11,48,000/- with 8%
interest.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, the
respondent had on account of the fatal accidental electric
tremors which incidentally caught fire on a grass and took
unfortunate toll of six buffaloes and certain damages to his
property. That, for fortuitous act of the employee of the
appellant MGVCL, who were allegedly negligent in keeping
electric connection to the newly installed tower of Reliance.
That, two wires came in contact with each other and created
short circuit, as a result, the sparks fell on the grass hey which
caught fire and loss had resulted permanently to the
respondent. Being aggrieved, the respondent instituted Special
Civil Suit as aforesaid, whereby, the learned Judge awarded
damages to the tune of Rs.11,48,000/- with 8% interest vide
judgment and decree dated 09.02.2011.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Viral J. Dave, appearing for
the appellants - MGVCL and learned advocate Mr. Nilesh
Pandya, appearing on behalf of Mr. U.M. Shastri, learned
advocate for the respondent - original claimant.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has submitted that so far as
the damages caused to the respondent claimant is concerned,
they have accepted the liability but, so far as the findings
recorded by the trial court with regard to future loss of income
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
from live-stock is concerned, merely on the basis of guess
work, the trial court has considered the loss to the tune of
Rs.8,40,000/-, which is erroneous, illegal and unjust. He has
submitted that the trial court has without considering the fact
that specific averments were made by the appellants in their
written statement and agitated that so far as the future
prospective income qua live-stock is concerned, it is not
permissible and thus, without considering the averments and
contentions raised by the appellants, the trial court has
awarded damages and considered future loss of prospective
income absolutely on the basis of guess work and there is no
any documentary evidence produce to that effect and
therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is required to be
appropriately modified qua the amount awarded towards
future prospective loss to the tune of Rs.8,40,000/-. Over and
above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned
advocate Mr. Dave has urged that the present appeal be
allowed and the impugned judgment and decree be quashed
and set aside / appropriately modified.
6. As against that, learned advocate Mr. Pandya has
supported the findings recorded by the trial court and
submitted that the loss occurred to the respondent is
considered in appropriate manner and there is no any guess
work on the part of the trial court and the amount awarded by
the trial court is just and adequate and no interference is
required to be called for in the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the trial court. He has further submitted that the
respondent had suffered loss way-back in the year 2008 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
almost 17 years have been passed and therefore, considering
the said period also, the amount awarded by the trial court is
just and proper 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
respective parties and perused the material placed on record.
It appears that the alleged incident of fire took place on
01.05.2008, wherein, the damage caused to the respondent to
the tune that his five milking buffaloes and one calf died and
also sustained damages in terms of his house-hold and other
agricultural crops in the fire which took place due to
electrocution and thus, the trial court after considering the
facts of the case and after considering the evidence produced
on record has awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,38,000/- towards damages of house-hold, furniture,
clothes, etc., Rs.1,20,000/- towards milking buffaloes which
burnt in fire and Rs.10,000/- for the damage caused for the
purpose of milk. The trial court has also awarded Rs,8,40,000/-
towards future prospective loss of income from the live-stock,
for which there is no reason assigned and there is no
satisfactory explanation given by the trial court. Merely on the
guess work, the amount of Rs.8,40,000/- was considered by
the trial court and therefore, I am of the opinion that the
amount of Rs.8,40,000/- towards future prospective loss of
income is without any basis and without any cogent and
material evidence and therefore, the same is required to be
considered at half the amount i.e. Rs.4,20,000/- alongwith
other amount which is awarded towards actual loss. Therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
the respondent is entitled for an amount of Rs.11,48,000/- -
Rs.4,20,000/- = Rs.7,28,000/-.
8. In view of above, the impugned judgment and award
dated 09.02.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Godhra in Special Civil Suit No. 59 of 2008 is hereby
modified to the extent that the excess amount of Rs.4,20,000/-
is to be refunded to the appellant MGVCL with interest accrued
on it, after proper verification and after following due
procedure, through RTGS/NEFT and the amount of
Rs.7,28,000/- alongwith interest accrued on it be disbursed in
favour of the respondent - original claimant, after proper
verification and after following due procedure, through
RTGS/NEFT.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is party allowed. No order as to
costs.
10. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
