Gujarat High Court
Deputy Executive Engineer vs Mansukhbhai Vashrambhai Nakum on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1203 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
Versus
MANSUKHBHAI VASHRAMBHAI NAKUM & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR RC KAKKAD(389) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant against the
judgment and decree dated 31.07.2010 passed by learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khambhaliya (hereinafter
referred to as the "trial Court") in Special Civil Suit No.35
of 2005, whereby the trial Court has directed present
appellants to pay Rs. 4,58,800/- with 8% interest p.a. to
the claimants.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that on
13.09.2003 when the deceased was working in the field of
his uncle namely Natvarbhai Vasrambhai at that point of
time, he came in contact with one electric pole and got
electrocution. Due to the said incident he died.
2.1 Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. father
and mother of the deceased had filed Special Civil Suit
No.35 of 2005 before the trial Court.
2.2 The trial Court after hearing both the sides and after
evaluating the evidence placed on record by both the
sides passed impugned judgment and award dated
31.07.2010.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court,
the original opponents before the trial Court have filed
preset appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
3. Heard Mr. Dipak Dave learned advocate for the
appellants and Mr. R.C. Kakkad learned advocates for the
respondents.
4. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the appellants has
submitted that the trial Court has not considered the
facts of the present case in its true and proper spirit,
while passing the impugned judgment and decree in
favour of original plaintiffs. He has submitted that the
trial Court has also committed an error while calculating
the quantum of damages awarded in favour of the original
plaintiffs. Learned advocate for the appellants also
submitted that the trial Court measurably failed to
appreciate the fact that the accident was occurred due to
negligence on part of the deceased and there was no fault
on part of the appellants.
4.1 In view of the above submissions, learned advocate
for the appellants urges before the Court that present
appeal may be allowed and impugned judgment and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
decree passed by the trial Court may be quashed and set
aside.
5. As against that Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate for the
respondents has submitted that the trial Court after
evaluating the evidence and material produced before it
has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree in
favour of claimants. He has submitted that it is the sole
responsibility and liability of the appellants to secure the
safety of the public at large and the appellants have failed
to secure the safety of the public at large. He has also
submitted that the trial Court observed that at the place
of occurrence, the transformer was not kept in proper
and secure manner and therefore, the electrocution was
occurred and because of that the deceased died and
evidence in this regard had also come on record of the
trial court and therefore, the trial Court has rightly
passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of
the original claimants.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
5.1 Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon
the decision of this Court dated 17.6.2025 passed in First
Appeal No.470 of 2012, wherein this Court has observed
that it is the duty of the appellant-electric company to
maintain electric lines/cables and other electric
equipment and it is also the duty of the appellants to
check the same periodically and take appropriate steps to
secure the safety measures of the said electric
equipment.
6. I have perused the relevant material and documents
placed on record. I have also examined the record and
proceedings and gone through the impugned judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court.
7. It appears that the trial Court, while dealing with the
issue Nos. 1, 2 and 5 has rightly considered the fact with
regard to the negligence on the part of the present
appellants.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
8. The trial Court has after considering the relevant
material and documents, framed the issues at Exh.16
which reads as under:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs' son
Mahendra died on 13.9.2003 due to electric shock?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the incident of
electric shock to plaintiffs' son occurred due to the
negligence on part of the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs are
entitled to recover Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation
from defendants?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs are entitled
to get interest on the amount due from the defendants
till it is recovered?
5. Whether the defendants prove that the accident
occurred due to the negligence on part of the
deceased Mahendra?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief as
prayed for?
7. What order and decree?
9. It appears that out of seven issues, the trial Court has,
in six issues answered affirmative and issue No.5
answered negative and thereafter, the trial Court
discussed oral and documentary evidence, referred in
paragraph No.5, at length. Thereafter, the Court has
discussed the issue No.1, 2 and 5 in paragraph No. 12 of
the judgment at length with regard to fault and liability
on part of the appellants and accordingly, on the basis of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
that, the trial Court considered quantum of damages. The
relevant discussion was also made in paragraph Nos. 14
and 15 of the impugned judgment and decree and after
considering all theses relevant facts and considering the
age of the deceased, the trial Court considered claim of
determination in favour of present respondents, which
according to my view, does not warrant any interference
by this Court.
9.1 In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the
trial Court has not committed any error in passing the
impugned judgment and decree in favour of the
claimants. There is no infirmity or illegality or perversity
in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court.
10. The amount which is deposited by the appellants and
lying with trial Court shall be disbursed in favour of the
respondents-original claimants and if part amount is
already withdrawn by the original claimants, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1203/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
remaining amount which is lying with concerned trial
Court shall be disbursed in favour of the respondents -
original claimants along with interest accrued on it, after
due verification and after following due process through
R.T.G.S. / N.E.F.T. within period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of the present order.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of any
merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment
and decree dated 31.07.2010 passed by trial Court in
Special Civil Suit No.35 of 2005 is hereby confirmed. No
order as to costs. Record and proceedings be sent back to
the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
