Gujarat High Court

Ashaji Punjaji ... vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd on 18 November, 2025

                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/2536/1997                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2536 of 1997


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                  Yes            No
                                                                                      ✔
                      ==========================================================
                           ASHAJI PUNJAJI JADEJA,THRO'ITSGUARDIAN PUNJAJI J JADEJA
                                                    Versus
                                   PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MS SONA SAGAR(1778) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                                       Date : 18/11/2025

                                                      ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal is filed under

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by

appellant - original plaintiff assailing the judgment and

decree dated 04.06.1997 passed in Special Civil Suit

No.154 of 1994 by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.),

Bhuj.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vishal Mehta for

learned advocate Mr.Mehul Shah for appellant -

original plaintiff. Learned advocate for respondents

remained absent.

3. Brief facts are as under:-

3.1 Plaintiff-appellant was working in the

Gujarat Water Supply Board as a Lineman. On

26.06.1992, while the appellant was on duty at

Ravapar Water Supply Line, he went near D.P. situated

near water pump.At around 15.00 hours, while plaintiff

was standing near D.P. and was waiting for wireman,

his hand accidentally came into contact with a pole

supporting a wire (Tania). Due to electric current

passing through wire (Tania), supporting the pole,

plaintiff received electric current and sustained serious

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

injuries on both hands, legs and other parts of the

body. Plaintiff was admitted in G.K. General Hospital

at Bhuj, where his both hands below the elbow, were

amputated.

3.2 Plaintiff gave notice to defendants but

defendants have not given any reply to the notice.

Therefore, plaintiff constrained to file the suit for

compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest at the rate

of 18% per annum from defendants. Summon was

served upon defendants, who filed Written Statement at

Ex.65 and denied the claim of plaintiff. Issues were

framed at Ex.19. Plaintiff led oral evidence and also

examined the witness at Ex.59. Defendant also

examined witness - Kanaiyalal Nagindas Daruwala at

Ex.63. After considering the evidence on record,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

learned trial Court partly allowed the suit directing

defendant/s to pay compensation of Rs.2,12,800/- with

interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of

filing of the suit till realization.

3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

quantum of compensation, appellant-plaintiff has filed

the present First Appeal for enhancement of

compensation.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant

contended that the accident occurred due to sole

negligence of defendants. Because of electric shock,

plaintiff sustained serious injuries on his body and both

hands below the elbows were amputated. These

injuries resulted in permanent and total disablement as

well as disfigurement of body. Plaintiff was aged about

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

19 years on the date of accident, and was earning

Rs.1,500/- per month as salary. The witness of

plaintiff, whose evidence is recorded at Ex.59, has

stated that the plaintiff was paid Rs.29.85 paisa per

day as salary and on the date of deposition i.e. in the

year 1997 as per the Government rates, salary of

plaintiff would have Rs.46/- per day.

4.1 It is further contended that the father of

plaintiff was serving with the Water Supply Board on

the same post and was drawing salary of Rs.1,100/-

per month. Reliance is placed on the salary certificate

at Ex.51. In absence of any other documentary

evidence of income, Ex.51 is an evidence which could

have been considered by learned trial Court in

determining the income. It is further contended that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

the learned trial Court has erred in determining the

income of plaintiff at Rs.900/- per month (Rs.29.85 per

day x 30). It is contended that looking to the

permanent disablement due to amputation of both

hands below the elbow, plaintiff has lost his future

earning capacity and functional disability ought to have

been considered at 100%. The learned Court below has

not properly considered the compensation under

conventional head such as pain, shock and suffering

and amenities of life.

4.2 It is contended that the multiplier adopted

by learned trial Court is not proper considering the age

of plaintiff. The multiplier ought to have been applied

at 18. Considering the injuries, plaintiff has lost

opportunity of maintaining himself as well as family

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

members and therefore functional disability ought to

have been considered at 100%. It is further contended

that while awarding compensation, learned trial Court

has failed to grant any compensation towards future

rise in income and appellants are entitled to 50%

addition in income.

So far as the income of plaintiff is

concerned, plaintiff would be satisfied if income is

assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month. The certificate issued

in favour of father of plaintiff also indicates that the

salary of his father in the year 1993 was Rs.1,100/-

p.m. who was serving in the same cadre with the same

employer. Thus, monthly income ought to have been

considered at Rs.1,500/- per month (Rs.1000/- + 50%

future rise in income). Considering 100% disability and

applying multiplier of 18, the annual loss of income of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

plaintiff would come to Rs.3,24,000/-. Adding medical

expenses of Rs.15,000/- and compensation under the

head of pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities

of life, total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- be

awarded. Except above, no other submissions are made

by learned advocate for the appellant.

5. It is the case of defendants-respondents that

the plaintiff himself was negligent in the occurrence of

accident and that the defendants had taken due care in

maintaining the electric pole with the wires attached to

it. The compensation which has been claimed by

plaintiff is on the higher side and there is no evidence

with regard to holding the defendant negligent or with

regard to income of plaintiff on the date of accident.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

6. I have considered the submissions canvassed

by learned advocate for the appellant and perused the

record and proceedings. The record indicates that the

plaintiff has established that he sustained serious

injuries, whereby, has lost both hands below the

elbow, due to an accident caused by electrocution. So

far as Issue No.4, which pertains to proving whether

defendants have proved that the electric lines were

maintained and periodically supervised. The record

reveals that the respondents have except leading oral

evidence have not produced any evidence with regard

to the compliance of Rules framed under the Gujarat

Electricity Rules. It is the duty of respondents to

maintain the electric lines, wires and other equipments

in such a manner as to ensure that no human life is

put at risk. There is nothing on record to suggest that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

the defendants have taken due care in maintaining in

electric lines. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly

held issue No.4 against defendants.

As per the submission of learned advocate

for appellant, present appeal is filed questioning the

determination of income of plaintiff only. Since, the

issue involved in the appeal is limited to the

assessment of income, it would be relevant to consider

the evidence of the Officer of Water Supply Board

recorded at Ex.59. As per the deposition of the said

witness, plaintiff was earning Rs.29.85 paisa per day.

In the year 1997, the day on which the deposition was

recorded, said witness has deposed that as per the

Government rates, plaintiff would have earned Rs.46/-

per day. The age of plaintiff on the date of accident

was 19 years and was working as a lineman with the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

Water Supply Board. The father of plaintiff was also

working with the Water Supply Board, was drawing a

salary of Rs.1,100/- per month in the year 1993, as

per the certificate at Ex.51. Considering the age of

plaintiff and the injuries he sustained including the

amputation of both hands below the elbow, it is

evident that plaintiff is entitled to reasonable

compensation.

7. This Court is fully conscious about the fact

that money will not give back the days, the days

which plaintiff was enjoying before the date of

accident. However, when the plaintiff has lost both

hands below the elbow due to negligence and

carelessness on the part of defendants, who have

admitted their negligence by not challenging the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

judgment, plaintiff is entitled for enhancement of

compensation in light of the aforesaid facts. The

compensation under the head of pain, shock and

suffering which was granted by learned Tribunal/Court

at Rs.25,000/- is required to be increased to

Rs.1,50,000/-. Furthermore, multiplier is required to be

modified and it would be appropriate to apply a

multiplier of 18 instead of 16. The plaintiff has

undisputedly suffered permanent disability due to the

loss of both hands below the elbow is undoubtedly the

disability which would hamper his earning capacity in

future. Applying the ratio of percentage of future rise

in cases of the Motor Vehicles Act, plaintiff is entitled

to 50% addition in income and functional disability is

required to be assessed at 100%.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2536/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

undefined

8. In view of the above set of facts, the

impugned judgment and decree is required to be

modified to the following extent and the appellant is

entitled to following additional amount of

compensation:-

                                                  Head                       Compensation in Rs.
                        Future loss of income                                                 3,24,000/-

                        Monthly income = Rs.1,000/-

                        Prospective income 50%
                        (Rs.1,000 + 50%) = Rs.1,500/-

                        Disability 100% = Rs.1,500/-

                        (Rs.1500x12 x 18) = Rs.3,24,000/-
                        Medical expenses                                                         15,000/-
                        Pain, shock and suffering and                                         1,50,000/-
                        amenities of life
                        Total                                                                 4,89,000/-
                        awarded amount of compensation                                        2,12,800/-
                        by Tribunal
                        Enhanced amount                                                        2,76,200/-
                        (Rs.4,89,000 - 2,12,800) =
                        Interest                                                                     @12%






                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/2536/1997                            JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

                                                                                                        undefined

9. The appellant - original plaintiff is entitled

to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,76,200/-

@ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit

till realization from respondents - defendants.

10. The respondents - defendants are directed to

deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with

interest as above within a period of Six Weeks from

the date of receipt of this order. Upon such deposition,

it will be open to the plaintiff-appellant to approach

the concerned Court/Tribunal for appropriate orders for

withdrawal. Learned Tribunal/Court shall disburse the

enhanced amount in favour of appellant after due