Gujarat High Court
Lilaki Kaburi W/O Ramsing Motia Damor vs Gujarat Electricity Board on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1049/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1049 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- No
=======================================
LILAKI KABURI W/O RAMSING MOTIA DAMOR & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD
=======================================
Appearance:
MR PRASHANT MANKAD(2189) for the Appellants
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Respondent
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 02/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 96
of the Civil Procedure Code against the impugned judgment and
order dated 29.08.2002 passed by the learned 4 th Joint Civil
Judge (S.D.), Nadiad (hereinafter be referred to as "the trial
Court") in Special Civil Suit No. 150 of 1993 whereby the trial
Court has partly decreed the suit and directed the appellants to
recover damages Rs.2,36,500/- with interest.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1049/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that
deceased Ramsingh Motiya Damor who was the husband of
appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 to 4 and son of
appellants No.5 and 6. It is the case of the appellants that the
deceased Ramsingh Motiya was serving as labourer in tobacco
processing house and also serving as watchman in the night hour
in the said house. It is the case of the appellants that on
30.04.1993, the Deputy Engineer, lineman, helper etc were
engaged in installation of electric pole at the place of incident
where the deceased was also called to raise the electric pole
without any remuneration. It is the case of the appellants that
the deceased went there and while he was raising the electric
pole due to negligence on the part of the respondent - employee
the said pole came in contact with high voltage power line and
due to electrocution, deceased succumbed to the injury.
2.1 The appellants being legal heirs of the deceased Ramsingh
Motiya have preferred the aforesaid suit for damages before the
trial Court, which came to be partly decreed.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order of the trial Court, the appellants have
preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard Mr. Prashant Mankad, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and Mr.Viral Dave, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent at length and perused the material available on
record.
5. Mr.Mankad, learned counsel for the appellants has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1049/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of
appeal and has submitted that the deceased was earning
Rs.1050/- per month by doing labour work in the tobacco farm
and earning Rs.450/- per month by serving as watchman in night
hour. He has submitted that the trial Court has committed an
error in not calculating the proper quantum and in not
considering the salary of Rs.450/-. He has submitted that the trial
Court ought to have considered the age of the deceased at 40
years and the same is supported by the medical report i.e.
postmortem and not denied by any of the party and hence, the
trial Court has committed an error in calculating the multiplier.
He has submitted that the trial Court has erred in awarding
compensation under the different heads and, therefore, the
appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and
order passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
6. Mr.Dave, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
that the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law
in passing the impugned judgment and order. He has submitted
that there is no any illegality and perversity in the impugned
judgment and order and the appeal being meritless deserves to
be dismissed.
7. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties and the material on
record and also personally examined the same. Considering the
evidence recorded by the trial Court, I am of the opinion that the
trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in
passing the impugned judgment and order. It appears that while
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1049/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
deciding the issue No.1, the trial Court has discussed the
evidence produced by the appellants with regard to the income
wherein it was mentioned that the deceased was working in
tobacco processing house and earning Rs.35/- per month, for
which the certificate was issued by the tobacco processing house
at Exhibit 60. Even the trial Court has considered the age of the
deceased on the basis of the postmortem report. It is submission
on behalf of appellants that deceased was earning Rs.450/- per
month by doing the work of security guard in night hour, for
which evidence of one of the witnesses came on record. It also
appears that the trial Court has considered the income of the
deceased at Rs.3150/- per month and rightly awarded the
amount of compensation of Rs.2,36,600/-. In view of the above, I
do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment
and order and there is no substance in the appeal and hence, the
same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed. If the amount of compensation awarded by the trial
Court is not withdrawn by the appellants, they are permitted to
withdraw the said amount along with the accrued interest. The
Nazir of the concerned Court is directed to release and disburse
the amount in favour of the claimants after verifying their bank
details through RTGS / NEFT. Registry is directed to send back
the record and proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending civil application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
