Gujarat High Court
Vrajlalbhai Lakhabhai Radadia vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1813/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1813 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
VRAJLALBHAI LAKHABHAI RADADIA
Versus
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL PATEL FOR VMP LEGAL(7210) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the judgment and order dated 30.08.2011 passed
by the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh
(hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") in Special
Civil Suit No. 28 of 2007 whereby the Trial Court
awarded compensation of Rs. 90,000/- along with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit until
realization, in favour of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note
that three Special Civil Suits were instituted before the
Trial Court, and the present appeal pertains specifically
to Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 2007.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1813/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that the
appellant is engaged in agricultural activities and is the
owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 111/1 paiki
1, admeasuring 27,620 sq. mtrs., equivalent to 17 Vighas,
situated at Village Prabhatpur, Taluka and District
Junagadh. On 07/04/2007, an electric line passing
through the said land fell down, which resulted in a fire,
causing extensive damage to the agricultural produce,
including sugarcane and fodder belonging to the
appellant.
2.1 The said fire also spread to adjoining lands and
damaged the crops of other agriculturists. The incident
was immediately reported to the police and a panchnama
was drawn on 07/04/2007. On account of the said
incident, the appellant sustained heavy financial loss due
to destruction of sugarcane and fodder crops and,
therefore, served a notice dated 30/04/2007 upon the
respondent calling upon it to pay compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/- towards damages. As there was no reply
from the respondent, the appellant was constrained to file
Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 2007 before the trial Court
inter alia praying for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
2.2 After filing of the suit, summons was duly served upon
the respondents, who thereafter filed their written
statement at Exhibit 10. Upon considering the pleadings
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1813/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
of both sides, the Trial Court framed the issues at
paragraph 3, which were subsequently answered by the
Court. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary
evidence referred to in paragraph 4, and after
considering the written and oral submissions advanced by
the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the
judgment and decree, thereby awarding Rs. 90,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the suit. The Trial Court believed the case
of the plaintiff to the extent that crops were cultivated
only on 4 Vigha of the agricultural field, while for the
remaining land no sufficient evidence was found.
2.3 The trial court, by judgment and decree dated
30/08/2011, partly allowed the suit and awarded
compensation of Rs.90,000/- holding that sugarcane was
cultivated only in an area admeasuring 74 Are, equivalent
to 4/5 Vighas, and disallowed the claim of Rs.1,98,000/-
for the remaining 12.5 Vighas.
2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment
and decree to the extent of disallowing compensation of
Rs.1,98,000/-, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Vimal M Patel, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr. Premal R. Joshi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1813/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
4. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant, has
submitted that while appreciating both the documentary
and oral evidence, the trial Court failed to take into
consideration that the entire 17 Vigha of land was shown
to have standing sugarcane crops, as reflected in the
revenue report -- specifically, the abstract of Form 7/12,
which was produced before the Court and marked as
Exhibit 18. He further submitted that, without properly
appreciating this evidence, the trial Court erroneously
concluded that only 4 Vigha of agricultural land had
standing sugarcane crops. He further submitted that
consequently, while assessing the damages, the trial
Court committed a serious error, resulting in an
inadequate and insufficient award of compensation.
4.1 Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant, has
further submitted that the trial Court discarded the
evidence produced by the appellant mainly on the ground
that there was no other endorsement regarding the other
crops, as contended by the appellant, and that there was
no mention of groundnuts in the said documents. He
further submitted that on this sole ground, the Court
disbelieved and rejected the evidence. He further
submitted that, while deciding Issues No. 2, 3, and 4, the
Court committed a serious error of law in calculating the
damages and awarding only Rs. 90,000, more
particularly, in considering paragraphs Nos. 16 and 17,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1813/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
the Court erred, and therefore, the present appeal is filed
for enhancement of the compensation. He urges before
the Court that present appeal may be allowed and the
impugned judgment and award passed by the trial Court
may be quashed and set aside or appropriately modified.
5. As against this, Mr. Premal Joshi, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent original defendant,
contended that the trial Court rightly considered both the
documentary and oral evidence and discussed the same
at length, particularly in paragraphs Nos. 16 and 17 of
the impugned judgment. He further submitted that there
is no infirmity or illegality committed by the trial Court.
He further submitted that there was insufficient evidence
produced before the trial Court to prove that standing
sugarcane crops existed on all 17 Vigha of land, as there
was no mention of groundnuts in the revenue abstracts
produced by the appellant himself and therefore, the
Court has not committed error in concluding that there
was no sufficient evidence regarding standing crops--
either sugarcane or groundnuts--on all 17 Vigha.
5.1 Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that under these circumstances, the Court has
not committed any error, and there is no infirmity or
illegality.
5.2 In view of the above, learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1813/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
respondent urges before the Court that present appeal
may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed
and impugned judgment and order passed by the trial
Court may be confirmed.
6. I have considered the facts of the case and relevant
material produced on record. I have also gone through
the record and proceedings vis a vis the impugned
judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
7. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the observations
made by the trial Court in paragraph Nos. 15, 16 and 17
which read as under:-
"15. Looking the above authorities, they are in respect to
death caused by the negligency of Electricity Board.
However, looking at the ratio which is held by Hon'ble High
Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is strict liability of the
Electricity Board to take adequate care and precaution that
live electric wires are not causing any damage or endanger to
public. To that. extent, all the above authorities squarely
apply to this case. Hence, I agree with the argument of
learned advocate Mr. Hirpara on behalf of the plaintiffs and
disagree with the arguments of learned advocate R.N. Sodha
for the defendant. In view of above reasons, discussions and
in light of the evidence and following the principle
enumerated in above cited authorities, plaintiffs successfully
proved that due to negligence of defendant incident of fire
occurred in their fields on 07-04-2007. Hence, I decide Issue
No. 1 in affirmative.
16. The plaintiff of Spl. C.S. No. 28/2007 has claimed Rs.
6,00,000/- compensation. In his chief-examination vide Exh.
16 in para-3 he has mentioned his land S.No. 111/1
admeasuring Hec.Are Sq. Mtrs. 2-74-78 17 Vigha and stated
that there was crop of sugarcan in 17 Vigha of farm. So far as
chief-examination is concerned, it is as per his plaint so it is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1813/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
not required to be mentioned in detail. So, looking to cross-
examination of the said plaintiff, he has admitted that there
was sugarcane in 74 Are in farm. He has denied that the
sugarcane was not only in area of four Vigha. He has stated
in cross-examination that crop of sugarcane can be yield 20
to 22 ton in one Vigha and about 100 Ton can be yield from
five Vigha. The rate of sugarcane was Rs. 1500/- per Ton at
that time. However, he has admitted that he has no any
document for the price of sugarcane. Now, looking the
documentary evidence vide Exh. 27 1.8. 7/12 abstract,
wherein crop of sugarcane is mentioned and it is also
supported by Rojkam vide Exh. 23 and also it appears from
the document that there was sugarcane in 17 Vigha of area of
farm. Of course, looking Rojkam vide Exh. 25 by the police
and Exh. 26 by Talati-cum-Mantri, damage is was assessed
Rs. 6,00,000/- There was sugarcane in 17 Vigha is also
supported by Panch Rojkam which has been made by
P.G.V.C.L. and it is produced on record vide Exh. 23. Not only
that, it is also supported by the oral evidence of Talati-cum-
Mantri Jaysukh Shamji Gajera. Talati-cum-Mantri vide Exh.
44. He has also admitted that sugarcane was in 74 Are of
farm. 74 Are = 4 1/2 Vigha. Mr. Jaysukhbhai has admitted
that there has has no any bill for the price of sugarcane and
Panchas of the Panch Rojkam were not merchant but they
were farmer. One Mr. Velji Gokal, Sarpanch of Prabhatpur
village has also stated in para-4 of his chief examination vide
Exh. 48 that there was sugarcane in about 16 to 17 Vigha
land of Vrajlal and all sugarcane was burnt and suffered
damages of Rupees six to seven lakh. He has stated that
there was about 15 to 17 Ton sugarcane and rate of
sugarcane at that time was Rs. 1500/ to 1700/. In cross-
examination he has also admitted that there was sugarcane in
74 Are. Looking above oral and documentary evidence, it is
proved that in the farm of Vrajlal, plaintiff of Special Civil
Suit No. 28/2007, there was sugarcane in only 74 Are i.e. 4
1/2 Vigha. Under this circumstances, looking the evidence,
the yield of sugarcane can be assessed and that was about 15
to 20 Ton sugarcane can be yield from the farm of Vrajlal. If
we assess maximum 20 Ton yield of sugarcane and if we
calculate Five Vigha instead of 4 1/2 Vigha, then it comes to
100 Ton. It is admitted that there was no documentary
evidence in support of price of sugarcane. One Mr.
Hitendragiri Vijendragiri Gosai, District Agriculture Officer
has been examined vide Exh. 70. In his deposition he has
admitted that about 14 Ton sugarcane can be yield in one
Vigha. So far as price of sugarcane is concerned, Mr. Vrajlal
in his deposition vide Exh. 16 stated that there was rate of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1813/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
sugarcane about Rs. 1,500/ to 1,700/- per Ton and it is also
supported by the oral evidence of Velji Gokal, Sarpanch of
village vide Exh. 48. But, looking the oral evidence of Babulal
Masribhai vide Exh. 58, this witness is working in sugarcane
factory as account clerk and he has stated in his chief-
examination that in year 2007 sugarcane was purchased at
the rate Rs. 905/ per Ton. However, he has admitted that he
has not produced any resolution regarding rate of sugarcane
as Rs. 905/. But, this price given by him can be considered
because, in support of this rate of sugarcane, bills as
documantary evidence have been produced vide Exh. 60 to
62. In cross-examination he has admitted that Rs. 5/ less
price in year 2007. Means, we can ascertain and fix price of
sugarcane for the yerar at Rs. 900/ per Ton.
17. Now, for the purpose to ascertain the damage to the crop
of sugarcane of plaintiff of Spl. C.S. No. 28/2007, I would like
to 100 Ton sugarcane X 900/-said that plaintiff Mr. calculate
by way of multiplying Rs. 90.000/ Hence, it can be Vrajlal
Lakhabhai Radadia has suffered loss of Rs. 90,000/ only. So,
he is entitled to Rs. 90,000/ compensation for the loss of his
crop of sugarcane."
8. Upon a careful perusal of the findings recorded by the
trial Court and a thorough examination of the oral as well
as documentary evidence produced before it, I find that
the trial Court has meticulously considered all relevant
materials placed on record. The discussion in paragraph
15 of the judgment clearly reflects the Court's
appreciation of the evidence, and the reasoning in
paragraphs 16 and 17, with regard to the quantum of
compensation, demonstrates that the Court applied its
mind judiciously while assessing the damages.
9. There is no infirmity or illegality in the approach
adopted by the trial Court in arriving at its conclusions.
The Court has rightly evaluated the evidence and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1813/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
quantified the compensation based on the proven extent
of damage to the appellant's crops and land. The
contention of the appellant that the compensation
awarded is inadequate or insufficient is not supported by
the evidence on record. The trial Court's findings are
neither perverse nor unreasonable, and the compensation
granted adequately reflects the loss suffered.
10. In light of the above, I am of the considered opinion
that the present appeal lacks merit and does not warrant
any interference with the impugned judgment and order.
Therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment
and order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Trial Court in
Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 2007 is hereby confirmed.
11. In the event the awarded amount has not yet been
disbursed in favour of the claimant, the same shall be
disbursed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, along with the interest as awarded by
the trial Court, after following the due procedure and
verifying the claimant's bank details through
RTGS/NEFT. The record and proceedings shall be sent
back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
