Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 234 (MP)

Ramdevi v. Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal

2013-02-22

U.C.Maheshwari

body2013
ORDER (Oral) Maheshwari, J. 1. The appellants/ plaintiffs have filed this appeal under section 96 of the CPC, for enhancement of the sum decreed by the Ist ADJ, Pichhore district Shivpuri in COS No.5-B/09 vide judgment dated 19.1.2011 whereby their suit for damages and compensation of Rs.3 lacs in respect of electrocution death of Chimanlal Gupta, the husband of appellant No.1 while father of appellant No.2, has been decreed against respondents No.1 to 5 only for the sum of Rs.75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit with a direction to pay such decretal sum jointly and severally by such respondents. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellants herein being wife and son of deceased Chimanlal by impleading respondents No.6 and 7 the mother and daughter of deceased Chimanlal, have filed the impugned suit for damages and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest and cost contending that on dated 1.4.08 at about 6 O’ Clock in the morning said Chimanlal went at the back of his residence to answer the call of nature where due to negligence of the officials of the respondent/Electricity Board, the live electricity line of 11 KV being loose was hanging. Due to such situation, he came into the contact of such hanging electric line and after sustaining the electric current died on the spot. This incident was reported to the Police Chowki Himmatpura, PS Pichhore, on which, a marg intimation was registered under section 174 of the CrPC After holding the inquiry of such inquest intimation, an offence under section 304A of the IPC was registered against respondent No.5 Hariram, the Lineman of the respondent-Board. After holding the investigation, he was charge sheeted for his prosecution before the criminal Court. Such criminal case is still pending. Before happening the alleged incident, a complaint in writing with the signature of the villagers in the shape of Panchnama was also given to the aforesaid Lineman respondent No.5, in spite of that such wire was not repaired. On account of such negligence, the alleged incident was happened in which aforesaid Chimanlal died and for that respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In further averments it is stated that at the time of death deceased Chimanlal was working as Asst.Teacher in the Govt. On account of such negligence, the alleged incident was happened in which aforesaid Chimanlal died and for that respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In further averments it is stated that at the time of death deceased Chimanlal was working as Asst.Teacher in the Govt. Primary School, Gouchoni, Pichhore and after requisite necessary deductions, he was getting Rs.13,646/- per month as monthly salary and the appellants as well as respondents No.6 and 7 were dependent on him. On account of his untimely death in the alleged incident, the appellants as well as the respondents No.6 and 7 suffered the mental agony of the incident. Besides this, the appellant No.1 has also lost the company of her husband and they have also lost the earning member. It is further stated that appellants do not have any source of income and, in such premises, the impugned suit initially was filed for Rs.6,00,000/- but subsequently, till the extent of respondents No.6 and 7, the same was reduced upto 3,00,000/- for the present appellants as compensation along with interest as stated above. 3. In the written statement of respondent No.4, the material averments of the complaint with respect of the alleged incident have been denied. In additional to it, it is stated that the particulars of respondents No.2,3 and 4 have not been correctly mentioned in the suit. The suit has been filed under collusion with the respondent No.6 and 7, as such, the appellants or respondents No.6 and 7 were not dependent on the income of the deceased. In addition, it is stated that one day earlier to the incident, i.e. on 31.3.2008 in the night there was heavy storm so due to such act of God, the insulator got burst consequently the wire was broken and the same was hanging till the next morning. It is further stated that the complaint regarding breaking and hanging of electric wire was not received by the respondents/authorities within time so, in the lack of such information, repairing was not possible and, in such premises, it could not be said that any negligence was committed by the respondent Board or its officials in maintaining the aforesaid line. In such premises, it is stated that the respondents-Board or its officials are not liable to pay any compensation as prayed by the plaintiffs or respondents No.6 and 7. In such premises, it is stated that the respondents-Board or its officials are not liable to pay any compensation as prayed by the plaintiffs or respondents No.6 and 7. The inquest report was also lodged on the false averments. The police case was also wrongly registered and respondent No.5 was produced before the Court for his prosecution under wrong premises. In addition, it is stated that deceased himself was responsible for the incident because at about 6 O’ Cock in the morning there was day time and due to his negligence he came into the contact of the live electric wire. So, in such premises, such liability could not be saddled against the respondents. In addition it is stated that deceased was working in the Govt. School as Asst. Teacher but after his death, his terminal benefits of the service, the sum of insurance and the compassionate appointment was also given to his wife. So, in such premises, the appellants are not entitled for any compensation from the respondents/company and its officials. With these averments prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. 4. After framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, on appreciation of the same, by holding that the aforesaid electric line had become loose and was hanging due to improper maintenance of the same by the respondent/company and its officials, it was held that due to such negligence of respondents No.1 to 5, on coming into contact of such electric line after sustaining the electric current said Chimanlal had died and in such premises, the suit of the appellants was decreed only for 75,000/- along with interest as stated above, on which, appellants have come to this Court for further enhancement of such sum and decreeing the suit for the entire sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest as claimed in the plaint. 5. Appellants counsel after taking me through the record of the trial Court as well as the impugned judgment argued that on appreciation the trial Court held that the deceased was working as Asst. Teacher in Govt. School and after necessary deductions was getting the salary of Rs.13,646/- per month. It was held that the deceased died due to negligence of the respondent/ company and its officials in maintaining the above mentioned electric line. Teacher in Govt. School and after necessary deductions was getting the salary of Rs.13,646/- per month. It was held that the deceased died due to negligence of the respondent/ company and its officials in maintaining the above mentioned electric line. In such premises, there was no occasion with the trial Court to decree the suit for lesser amount Rs.75,000/- only but, on any calculation, Rs.3,00,000/- was not the sum of higher side. In continuation he said that although there is no rule, regulation or guideline to assess the compensation or the damages but in order to assess the just and proper compensation, treating the death of Chimanlal as accidental death, till some extent, by borrowing the provision and interpretation of Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation could have been assessed by the trial Court and, in such premises, on assessing the same even then the compensation comes more than Rs.7,00,000/- for the appellants. In continuation, he said that if 1/3rd of the salary is deducted on the expenses of the deceased which he would have spent, had he been alive, then dependency comes to Rs.9,000/- per month, and in such premises, the same comes to Rs. 1,08,000/- per annum and in the light of the age of the deceased as 50 years, on applying the multiplier of 13 as decided by the apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another-(2009) 6 SCC 121, the compensation comes near about 14,00,000/- but the suit was filed only for Rs.3,00,000/- and, in such premises, prayed to enhance the amount and decree the suit for Rs.3,00,000/- in accordance with the plaint by allowing this appeal. 6. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the counsel of the respondents saying that the impugned judgment has been passed by the trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. In continuation he said that in the lack of specific provision, rules, regulation and guideline in this regard, taking into consideration the provision and interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation could not be assessed. He further said that the compensation assessed by the trial Court is just and proper and it does not require further enhancement and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 7. He further said that the compensation assessed by the trial Court is just and proper and it does not require further enhancement and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 7. Having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel, I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court along with the impugned judgment so also the evidence led by the parties and the exhibited documents. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the absence of any appeal on behalf of the respondent/company or its officials, this Court has not to examine or decide the validity of the findings of the impugned judgment according to which it was held that the alleged accident of electrocution in which Chimanlal had died was happened due to negligence of the respondent No.1 and its officials. So, this Court has to answer the question whether the quantum of compensation of Rs.75,000/- as decreed by the trial Court is sufficient for the appellants or it requires some further enhancement as prayed in the plaint. 9. As per the available evidence, it is undisputed fact that the deceased was working as Asst. Teacher in some Govt. School from where after necessary deduction, he was getting Rs.13,646/- per month and his age was 50 years. It is also undisputed fact from the evidence that respondents No.6 and 7, his mother and daughter along with the appellants wife and son, were dependent on him. So, in such premises, it could be assumed that if he had not died in the alleged accident then he would have helped his family from the aforesaid salary upto the age of his retirement. 10. In order to decide or assess the just and proper compensation or sum of damages, the Court is bound to adopt the practical approach and if some specific provision, rules, regulation or guidelines is not available in the special provision or any enactment then in that circumstance, the Court may borrow the provision of some other enactment to assess the compensation. For the sake of arguments to assess the reasonable compensation or damages if the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and its interpretation are taken into consideration then in view of the salary of the deceased on the date of the incident Rs.13,646/-, in the light of said case of Sarla Verma ( supra ) , on deducting its 1/3rd sum on account of expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on himself had he been alive, then the dependency of the appellants and respondents No.6 and 7 on the deceased comes to Rs.9,000/- per month. Accordingly, the annual dependency comes to Rs.1,08,000/- and in view of the aforesaid case of Sarla Verma (supra) on applying the multiplier of 13, the total compensation comes to Rs.14,04,000/-. In the lack of the Court fee and also in view of the prayer clause of the suit, the same has not been decreed for respondents No.6 and 7, therefore, if fifty percent amount from the aforesaid sum is deducted on such count then appellants claim comes to Rs.7,02,000/- besides the other expenses but the appellants have filed the suit only for Rs.3,00,000/-. So, in such premises, the impugned decree of the trial Court allowing the suit of the appellant only for Rs.75,000/- could not be said to be correct and, in such premises, the impugned decree requires modification by enhancing the sum upto the aforesaid limit but because the suit has been filed only for Rs.3,00,000/-, and the court fees was paid accordingly, therefore, this Court is bound to consider the prayer of the appellants only upto the aforesaid maximum limit of the prayer clause of the suit. 11. In the aforesaid premises it is held that the trial Court has committed error in decreeing the suit only for Rs.75,000/-. In the available circumstances, as discussed above, the same requires further enhancement upto Rs.3,00,000/- as prayed in the plaint. It is needless to say that on any count the respondents/ company could not escape from the aforesaid liability in view of the principle of strict liability. 12. In view of the aforesaid, by allowing this appeal, the suit of the appellants till their extent is hereby decreed for three lacs as prayed in the plaint along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit. 12. In view of the aforesaid, by allowing this appeal, the suit of the appellants till their extent is hereby decreed for three lacs as prayed in the plaint along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit. If remaining decretal amount is not paid by the respondents No.1 to 5 within three months from today then the appellants shall be entitled to get the interest on the remaining sum @ 9% per annum. It is made clear that by this judgment, the sum of the impugned decree has been enhanced from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.3 lacs with the aforesaid interest. The respondents/company and its officials shall bear their own cost as well as the cost of appellants of both the Courts. Counsel fees shall be payable in accordance with the schedule, if the same is certified. Till this extent, the impugned judgment and decree is modified while the other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. The decree be drawn up accordingly. 13. The appeal is allowed as indicated above.