Gujarat High Court
P.G.V.C.L vs Devsinhbhai Arjanbhai Hadiya on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1918 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
P.G.V.C.L. & ANR.
Versus
DEVSINHBHAI ARJANBHAI HADIYA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by appellants-original defendants
assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2006 passed by
learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Special
Civil Suit No.50 of 2003.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. R.V. Acharya for the
appellants and learned advocate Mr. Anand M. Ranpara for
learned advocate Mr. P.S. Champaneri for respondents.
Perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1. Respondents herein original plaintiffs filed a suit for
damages against the appellants herein original defendants by
alleging that on 27.06.2001 when deceased Maheshkumar
Devsinhbhai Hadiya was working in the field of Sharmanbhai
Aalabhai, deceased got electrocution. Resultantly, deceased
expired. Appellants appeared and filed Written Statement at
Exhibit-30. Plaintiff No.1 examined himself at Exhibit-36.
Plaintiffs also examined two witnesses at Exhibits-41 and 49
namely Sharmanbhai Aalabhai and Devsibhai Jagmalbhai
respectively and also produced documentary evidences in
support of the claim. Defendant examined its Officer
Vijaychandra Bhupendrabhai at Exhibit-54 and produced
Rojkam prepared by defendants and the statements taken by
defendants at Exhibits-55 and 56 respectively. Issues were
framed at Exhibit-33. After considering the evidence, learned
trial Court partly decreed the suit and directed appellants-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
defendants to pay Rs.5,22,000/- to the plaintiffs along with
interest @ 9% per annum.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and decree, original defendants have filed the
present First Appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that
contentions raised by plaintiffs that deceased expired due to
electrocution on 27.06.2001. However, there was no
supporting line (Taniya) to the main Electric Pole and
therefore, case put up by the plaintiffs that deceased came into
contact with the said Taniya, does not stand on its footing. It is
further contended that there is no evidence to establish the
alleged fact that there existed Taniya with Electric Pole.
Panchnama Exhibit-38 also finds no existence of Taniya on
the place of incident. It is further contended that learned trial
Court has failed to appreciate the fact that deceased has died
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
due to his sole negligence. It is further contended that learned
trial Court has not considered the evidence that wires were
passing through the main Electric Pole which was according
to the Rules and Regulations of the Electricity Act and there
was no wire hanging out from the main Electric Pole. The
Rojkam prepred by the Officers of the Electricity Company
also indicates that there was no supporting line (Taniya)
connected with the main Electric Pole and therefore, in
absence of any evidence, learned trial Court has committed an
error by holding the appellants liable for compensation. So far
as the income is concerned, plaintiffs have not produced any
documentary evidence and therefore, the assessment of the
earning of deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month is excessive. The
rate of interest which has been awarded by leaned trial Court
is also on the higher side. Except above, no other submissions
are canvassed by learned advocate for the appellants.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondents has
supported the judgment and decree and contended that there
was ample evidence on record whereby the negligence has
been attributed upon the appellants. It is further contended that
on the date of incident, deceased was working at the field of
Sharmanbhai Aalabhai along with other workers. While
switching on the Electric Metre which was situated in the field
of Sharmanbhai Aalabhai, deceased accidentally touched the
Taniya which was in support of the Electric Pole. Due to
faulty and defective electric wires, electric current was passing
through the said Taniya, deceased got electric current whereby
palms of deceased were burnt and during the treatment,
deceased expired. The police complaint was filed by plaintiffs
and panchnama Exhibit-38 was carried out wherein there is a
specific mention about the existence of Taniya nearby the
Electric Pole. This evidence clearly establishes a fact that
there existed Taniya in support of the Electric Pole. In the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
cross-examination of the witness of the appellants, witness has
admitted a fact that wires were found in dilapidated condition
and the longevity of wires were almost 22 to 25 years. The
oral deposition of the said witness is sufficient in holding the
appellants liable in not maintaining the electric appliances.
Learned trial Court has considered the entire evidence in detail
and thereafter decreed the suit. Except above, no other
submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the
respondents.
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the parties and perused Record and Proceedings.
An undisputed fact culls out from the record is that on
27.06.2001, deceased passed away due to electrocution.
However, the only contention which has been raised by
learrned advocate for the appellants is that there was no
supporting line (Taniya) connected with the Electric Pole. It is
also the defence of the appellants in the suit that since there
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
was no Taniya in existence, the case put by the plaintiffs that
deceased got electric current through the Taniya falls flat. To
meet with this contention, Exhibit-38 which is panchnama
drawn by the police pursuant to the complaint registered by
the relatives of the deceased, in clear terms indicates that
Taniya was lying besides the electric Pole. In absence of any
other material contrary to the fact that the electric Pole was
supported by Taniya, I do not find any reason to disturb the
finding which has been arrived at by learned trial Court.
Moreover, the oral deposition of an eye-witness recorded at
Exhibit-45 further strenghtens the case of the plaintiffs. The
said witness in his deposition has stated that deceased came
into contanct with Taniya through which electric power was
leaking. The post mortem report produced at Exhibit-40 also
states the casue of death 'electric current' (shot). It is the duty
of the appellants to maintain electric appliances which are
installed in either a public place or passing through the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
properties of any owner. In the present case, appellants have
not produced any iota of evidence to establish that the wires
were duly maintained and were periodically inspected. The
panchnama of the place of incident also reveals that the wires
were not duly covered with PUC and the wires were in an
open condition. This facttual position of the lying electric
wires open is sufficient in establishing the negligence of
appellants in not maintaining the electric appliances.
7. So far as the income of deceased is concerned, it is an
undisputed fact that deceased was aged about 20 years on the
date of incident and the plaintiffs claimed compensation of
Rs.10,42,000/- with interest. As per the case of plaintiffs,
deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month while working at
the field of Sharmanbhai Aalabhai, learned trial Court in
absence of any documentary evidence with regard to income
of deceased, assessed the income at Rs.4,000/- per month,
which in my view, is just and reasonable assessment. In
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
absence of any documentary evidence witth regard to income,
the some guesswork is permissible in the cases where
deceased is labourer doing a work of labour in the field. Even
if the rates of minimum wages prevailing on the date of
incident is considered, the rate would come to Rs.2,000/- per
month.
8. Negligence in electrocution cases is often established
through the failure of the electricity board or their officers in
non-maintaining a high standard care in managing electrical
infrastructure. Failure to repair or maintain equipment,
resulting in accidents like electrocution, principle of strict
liability is often applied because electricity is considered
inherently Dangerous activity. Electricity providers have an
utmost duty of care to ensure that lines and equipments are
safe. This includes proper installation, maintenance and repair
of all electrical infrastructure. If there is evidence of failure to
meet these duties of care, it tentamounts to negligence on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
part of electricity provider. The breach of duty must have
directly caused the electrocution. Broken high voltage wires,
open or exposed, electrical wires, poor maintained polls or
other infrastructure, lack of safety measures like warning signs
where contact is possible are the instances of failure in taking
utmost good care of electrical infrastructure and on proving
such failures would invite a liability of compensating the
victim or their legal representatives.
9. In Law of Torts, negligence means failure to exercise the
standard of care that reasonable person would exercise in a
similar situation, which results in harm or injury to another
person. To prove negligence important elements such as a
duty to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, causation and
damages are to be established. In the present case, the
evidence indicates that plaintiffs have succeeded on all four
counts and the oral deposition of the appellant is sufficient
evidence in holding the appellants liable for compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1918/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
10. Considering the entire evidence, I do not find any reason
to interfere in the findings. As no contrary material could be
pointed out by learned advocate for the appellants, whereby
findings on negligence can be re-assessed, the First Appeal
fails and the same is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, granted
earlier stands vacated forthwith.
11. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concened Court forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
