Gujarat High Court
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited vs Shobhaben Tribhovanbhai on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 67 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 2 of 2010
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 67 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
SHOBHABEN TRIBHOVANBHAI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2.1,2.3,2.4,2.5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL:-
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by appellants-original defendants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 passed
by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar in Special
Civil Suit No.181 of 1999.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the
appellants and learned advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah for the
respondents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
3.1 It is the case of the plaintiffs-respondents herein that
deceased-Tribhovanbhai Shamjibhai on 09.06.1998 while
passing on the road and due to cyclone, main electric line
passing through the main bazar all of a sudden broke down and
as a result, it fell down on the deceased who died due to electric
shock. The accidental death was regisrtered in Botad Police
Station vide Entry No.17 of 1998. Notice dated 06.10.1998 was
issued by plaintiffs to the defendants. Deceased was aged about
30 years at the relevant point of time and according to the case
of plaintiffs, deceased was a worker working as a dimond
cutting and was earning from the agricultral work also. The
income of deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month as per the case of
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs being the legal heirs of deceased filed a suit
for recovery of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs with interest @12%
per annum. Defendants were duly served with the summons.
Defendants appeared and filed Written Statement at Exhibit-11.
Plaintiff examined herself at Exhibit-23 and also examined a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
witness Dungarshibhai Shamjibhai Tejani at Exhibit-32.
Plaintiffs also produced copy of complaint, panchnama, post
mortem report and other documentary evidences in support their
claim. Defendants examined its witness Jigneshbhai Balvantrai
Upadhyay at Exhibit-51. After considering the evidence on
record, the suit of the plaintiffs came to be partly decreed
directing defendants to pay compensation of Rs.4,89,600/- with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and decree, appellants-defendants have filed the
present First Appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants at the outset
contended that there is no negligence on the part of appellants as
due to cyclonic condition on 09.06.1998 the main electric line
fell down on the deceased which resulted into an unfortunate
death of deceased-Tribhovanbhai Shamjibhai. It is further
contended that plaintiffs have not led any evidence with regard
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
to alleged negligence on the part of appellants. In absence of any
proof with regard to the income, learned trial Court has erred in
holding the income of deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month which
is unreasonable and unjust. It is further contended that learned
trial Court has not adopted rates of minimum wages prevailing
on the date of incident and has considered the higher income
than the deceased was entitled to. It is further contended that the
incident is of an "Act of God" and therefore no negligence can
be attributed on the part of appellants in the occurrence of
accident. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the
evidence on record and decreed the suit.
5. On the other hand, it is the case of the respndents-plaintiffs
that taking into consideration Rule 29 and 50(1)(f) of the Indian
Electricity Rules 1956, duty is cast upon the appellant-Company
to take adequate measure so as to see that no live wires are
exposed. It is also the case of the respondents that on the date of
incident, main electric line passing through the main bazar broke
down and fell on the deceased and because of the electric
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
current, deceased who was aged about 30 years passed away.
Deceased was in the work of diamond cutting activity and was
also earning out of agricultral work. The income of deceased
was at Rs.5,000/- per month. Plaintiffs have also examined the
employer with whom deceased was working. It is further
contended by the plaintiffs that despite notice dated 06.10.1998
issued by the plaintiffs, defendants did not reply to such notice
and therefore plaintiffs were constranined to file the suit for
compensation. It is further contended that falling down of live
wires from main electric line clearly indicates negligence on the
part of defendants. Except above, no other submissions are
made by learned advocate for the appellants.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned
advocates for the parties and also perused Record and
Proceedings. From the record, it is coming out that the fact of
occurrence of the incident and the fact of death of deceased are
not in dispute. The only question which has been raised by
learned advocate for the appellants is with regard to attributing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
negligence upon the appellants. In the Written Statement, it is a
positive assertion made by appellants that the appellants are
maintaining the electric line with due care and caution and the
electric lines are being maintained periodically. Since the falling
down of live electric line on the deceased due to cyclonic
condition, is an "Act of God" and for that, appellants cannot be
saddled with the liability to pay compensation under the head of
negligence. To test this contention, a reference is to be noted
from the cross-examination of witness of appellants whose
evidence is recorded at Exhibit-51. In the corss-examination, a
specific question is put to the witness of appellants with regard
to the fact as to when did electric lines were maintained last? A
very shocking and irresponsible reply is given by the witness of
appellants. The said witness replied that since the incident is of
1998, the office record might have been destroyed in the year
2000. If this is the fact and the stand of the appellant in
connection with the case of negligence, the conduct and
approach of the appellants is too casual. It is also an undisputed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
fact that before the institution of the suit, plaintiffs had issued a
legal notice dated 06.10.1998, appellants have rightly been held
negligent. The appellants are bound to have the record of
periodical visits reports and the maintenance carried out of the
electric lines, wires etc. Appellants are not expected to destroy
the office record when the civil proceedings are pending before
the Court wherein appellants have been alleged to have
remained negligent. Even the Rules framed under the Indian
Electricity Rules, 1956 more particularly, Rules 29 and 50(1)(f)
of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 mandates that construction,
installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric
supply and the apparatus. Rules 29(1) of the Indian Electricity
Rules, 1956 is reproduced as under:
"29. Construction, installation, protenction, operation and maintenance
of electric supply and the apparatus (1) All electric supply lines and
apparatus shall be of sufficient ratings for power, insulation and
estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty
which they may be required to perform under the environmental
conditions of installation, and shall be constructed, installed, protected,
worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human
beings, animals and property."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
Rule 50(1)(f) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 is
reproduced as under:-
"50. Supply and use of energy. (1) The energy shall not be supplied,
transformed, converted or used or continued to be supplied, transformed,
converted or used unless provisions as set out below are observed:-
(a) to (e). ******.
(f) adequate precautions shall be taken to ensure that no live parts are so
exposed as to cause danger."
7. Rule 50(1)(f) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956
envisages adequate precautions shall be taken to ensure that no
live parts are so exposed as to cause danger. It is the duty of
appellant to ensure safety of human beings and the properties of
human beings in seeing that any human being or property of
human being is not being damaged due to inaction or negligence
on the part of appellants. Learned trial Court while considering
the evidence on record, has righlty held appellants liable and the
appellants could not point out any contrary material whereby,
appellants can be absolved from the liability to compensate the
legal heirs of deceased person.
8. So far as the income of deceased is concerned, the oral
deposition of the employer who has been examined by plaintiffs
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
at Exhibit-32 clearly indicates that deceased was doing the work
of diamond crushing at the workplace owned by the witness
Dungarshibhai Shamjibhai Tejani. Learned trial Court while
awarding the compensation has not considered the compenation
qua conventional heads. Even if the minimum rates of wages
prevailing on the date of incident is considered which was at
Rs.1,600/- per month, adding the prospective income at 40%
and other conventional heads, the compenation would come to
almost the same which has been granted by learned trial Court.
9. Considering the evidence and other material available on
record, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings
arrived at by learned trial Court. Resutanlty, First Appeal fails
and the same is dismissed.
10. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court / Tribunal forthwith.
Order in Civil Application:-
1. This Civil Application for additional evidence under Order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/67/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed by the
applicants-original appellants.
2. Appellants have also filed an application seeking
additional evidence. However, considering the application as
well as the documents which are sought to be produced as
additional evidence, it is not the contention of appellants-
applicants that the documents sought to be produced were not
either within their knowledge or possession during trial. It is not
the case of the appellants that the learned trial Court did not
permit appellants to produce evidence which is sought to be
produced before this Court. Since the application for seeking
additional evidence is outside the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also rejected.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
