Safiya Malik

The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak dismissed a civil appeal challenging the trial court’s compensation award to the mother of an 18-year-old deceased. The bench held that the death occurred due to negligence by the electricity board, and upheld the compensation amount and interest awarded by the lower court. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kutch-Bhuj.

The court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial court and concluded that the evidence and documents presented were thoroughly evaluated. The Court ordered the disbursement of the deposited compensation along with accrued interest to the surviving respondent, the mother of the deceased, within eight weeks. All interim reliefs were vacated.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Section 5A | Purchase Tax Can Apply Even If Sale Is Exempt | Provision Is A Distinct Charging Section

The appellant in the matter was Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. The original plaintiffs were the parents of an 18-year-old boy, Vithaldas Muthubhai Maheshwari, who died due to electrocution on 8 March 2008. According to the complaint, the boy was cutting plants under trees for cattle grazing when he came in contact with a live wire that was hanging low and entangled with the trees.

Following the incident, the parents filed Special Civil Suit No. 91 of 2008 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kutch-Bhuj, seeking compensation from the electricity board for their son’s untimely death. They contended that the board was responsible for maintaining the electric infrastructure and failed to take adequate care to ensure the wires did not pose a hazard.

The trial court, after examining evidence and witness statements, awarded compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- to the plaintiffs along with 9% interest from the date of suit until realization. The electricity board challenged this decision, asserting that there was no negligence on their part and the deceased ought to have been vigilant about the potential dangers posed by live wires.

The appellant raised several arguments before the High Court. Firstly, it was submitted that the trial court erroneously concluded that there was negligence by the electricity board. Secondly, the appellant questioned the assumption of the deceased’s monthly income as Rs.4500, arguing that there was no documentary proof, such as a birth certificate or income documents. Additionally, they contended that the trial court erred in applying a multiplier of 18 in assessing compensation.

The appellant claimed the trial court had not properly appreciated the element of contributory negligence. According to them, the deceased bore responsibility for not avoiding contact with the wires.

On the other side, respondent No.2 (the mother of the deceased) submitted that her husband, co-plaintiff in the original suit, had died during the pendency of the appeal and hence the case abated with respect to him. She became the sole respondent. Her counsel submitted that the judgment was rightly passed based on documentary and oral evidence, including witness testimony and official records like the post-mortem report and panchnama.

The trial court had concluded that the plaintiff’s son was earning Rs.200 per day from selling milk, leading to an assumed monthly income of Rs.6000. The absence of a birth certificate was offset by findings from the post-mortem report, which recorded the boy’s age as 18.

The Court considered the central issue: "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?"

It recorded: "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."

On the issue of age, the Court stated: "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."

Regarding income, it was observed: "Further, the trial Court has also considered the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day from selling of Milk and his monthly income was Rs.6000/- per month."

On the role of the electricity board, the judgment recorded: "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."

The court added: "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."

In response to the claim of no negligence and contributory negligence raised by the appellant, the court found: "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."

On procedural fairness, the court stated: "The 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."

Also Read: Yes Bank Fined Rs 50000 For Insisting On Aadhaar | Bombay High Court Says No Justification To Deny Account Opening | Compensation Granted To Microfibers Pvt Ltd

The Court issued the following directives:

"Present appeal is meritless 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."

"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."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants: Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, Advocate for the Appellant

For the Respondents: Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave and Mr. Rahul K. Dave, Advocates

Case Title: Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. vs. Mithaubhai Nageshi Maheshwari & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: GUJHC:32607

Case Number: R/First Appeal No. 470 of 2012

Bench: Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak