Gujarat High Court
Paschim Gujarat Vij Co Ltd vs Mithaubhai Nageshi Maheshwari on 17 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/470/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 470 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD
Versus
MITHAUBHAI NAGESHI MAHESHWARI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 17/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - Paschim
Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. against the judgment and order dated
22.11.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Kutch-Bhuj (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court)
in Special Civil Suit No. 91 of 2008, whereby the trial
Court has partly allowed the above Civil Suit filed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/470/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
present respondents-original plaintiffs and directed
present appellant-defendant to pay Rs.6,25,000/- along
with 9% interest from the date of suit till its realization to
present respondents.
2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are as
under:-
2.1 On 08.03.2008 at 17.00 O'clock the son of plaintiffs
named Vithaldas Muthubhai Maheshwari, aged 18 years
old was standing below the trees and was cutting the
plaints for grazing their cattles. At that time, he was
electrocuted due to electric line passing though the trees
and died.
2.2 In view of the above incident, the plaintiffs - being
parents of the deceased have filed suit for recovery of
compensation on account of untimely death of their
younger son.
2.3 The trial Court, after hearing both the sides and
after evaluating the evidence placed on record as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/470/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
considering the plethora of documents has passed the
impugned judgment and order directing the present
appellant to pay Rs.6,25,000/- along with 9% interest
from the date of suit till its realization to present
respondents.
2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order, the appellant has preferred present
appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned counsel
for the respondent No.2.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted
that the trial Court has, without verifying and without
considering the submissions in its true and proper spirit
passed the impugned judgment and order which is bad in
law.
4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has also
submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/470/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
appellant and the deceased would have been reasonable
vigilant while coming closer to the live electric wires and
ought to have been aware of probable danger.
4.2 Learned advocate for the appellant has also
submitted that on the ground of contributory negligence
trial Court ought not to have granted such huge amount
by way of compensation.
4.3 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted
that trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that
the deceased was earning Rs.4500/- viz a viz the
deceased was 18 years. In fact, the birth date of the
deceased was not registered in any Panchayat
department, however trial Court has applied multiplier of
18 for the purpose of assessing compensation, which is
not in consonance with law.
4.4 In view of the above, learned advocate for the
appellant urges before the Court that present appeal may
be allowed and impugned judgment and order passed by
the trial Court may be quashed and set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/470/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
5. On the other hand, Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned
advocate for respondent No.2 has submitted that the
father of the deceased was died during pendency of the
appeal and therefore, the appeal came to be abated qua
respondent No.1 vide order dated 25.03.2014 and
therefore, now respondent No.2 being mother of the
deceased is the sole respondent.
5.1 Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has also
submitted that the trial Court, after going through the
plethora of the evidence and after hearing both the sides
has passed the impugned judgment and award and rightly
held that the death of 18 year's son of respondent No.2
was occurred due to negligence on part of appellant.
5.2 Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has also
submitted that the said fact was fully supported by
independent witnesses and the documentary evidence
placed on record.
5.3 Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/470/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
submitted that the trial Court, after close scrutiny of the
evidence and after taking into account relevant material
and documents, has rightly passed the impugned
judgment and award.
5.4 In view of the above submissions, learned advocate
for the respondent No.2 urges before the Court that
present appeal may be dismissed and impugned judgment
and award passed by the trial Court may be confirmed.
6. I have perused the material and documents available
on record as well the record and proceedings. I have also
gone through the impugned judgment and award passed
by the trial Court.
7. The issue involved in present appeal is that; Whether
the trial Court has committed any error while passing the
impugned judgment and order? and Whether the
impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is
perverse and illegal in the eyes of law?
8. For the aforesaid issue, I have gone through the record
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/470/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
of the trial Court and relevant documents. It appears from
the record that the trial Court has framed the issues at
Exh.16 which reads as under:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that his son expired
due to electric shock due to negligence on the part
of the employee of the defendant institution?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any
compensation from the defendant? If yes, how
much?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest?
If yes, from which date and at what rate?
(4) Whether is there any due in favour of the
plaintiff?
(5) What order and decree?
9. After close scrutiny and after going through the
plethora of documents, the trial Court has answered all
the issues in affirmative. The reasons recorded by the
trial court to deal with the said issues are just and proper.
With regard to the age of the decease the trial Court has
also discussed that Post Mortem note and the inquest
panchnama were supported the theory of 18 years age.
Further, the trial Court has also considered the fact that
the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day from selling of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/470/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
Milk and his monthly income was Rs.6000/- per month.
10. Hence, in view of the above observations, this Court
is of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed
any error in passing the impugned judgment and award.
In fact, trial Court has considered all the relevant aspects
and has taken into account documentary as well as oral
evidence and passed the impugned judgment and award
and hence, in my view, there is no need to interfere in the
impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court,
which is absolutely in accordance with law.
11. It is appropriate to note herein that it is the duty of
the electric board to see that the electric wires do not
touch the trees and for that the board has to appropriate
steps. In present case, due to negligence on the part of
the board, the son of respondent No.2 died untimely.
Further, from the record it establishes that the wires
were hanging and bent from the centre and had come
near to the ground and same were touching the trees.
12. In view of the above discussion, I am in complete
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/470/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
agreement with the judgment and award passed by the
trial Court. I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain
present appeal.
13. For the foregoing reasons, present appeal is merit
less and the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment and
order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Kutch-Bhuj in Special Civil Suit No. 91
of 2008, is hereby confirmed. Interim relief, if any stands
vacated forthwith.
14. The amount deposited by the appellant before the
trial Court is ordered to be disbursed in favour of
respondent No.2 herein along with accrued interest, if
any, within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of present order. The record and proceedings, if
any, be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
