Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 389 (RAJ)

Meera v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

2016-03-08

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2016
ORDER : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. By this common order, S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 291/1997 preferred by the claimants - Meera and Others, as well as, S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 264/1997 filed by the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Others, shall be decided together. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Prahlad on 22.08.1984 in the evening, was going out of his house for purchasing domestic articles and when he was passing near electric pole, a live electric wire had fallen. Prahlad died due to electrocution. An F.I.R. to this effect was lodged against officials of the electricity service provider for the rash and negligent act. 3. The Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in the suit instituted by widow and three minor daughters, aged ten, nine and seven years respectively and a son aged five years, in all, had awarded compensation of Rs. 90,640/-. The electricity service provider aggrieved against the award has preferred an appeal praying inter alia that the legal heirs of Prahlad are not entitled to receive any compensation. In alternative, it has been prayed that the amount awarded is excessive and, hence, same be reduced. Whereas widow and three minor daughters and a minor son have preferred an appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 4. This Court during pendency of another appeal bearing S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 65/1997 filed by Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur, on 17.02.2016 had passed the following order:- "The occurrence leading to filing of the suit had taken place on 11.5.1993. The impugned judgment was rendered by the District Judge, Tonk on 29.11.1996. The District Judge, Tonk had awarded Rs. 1,70,000/- as compensation to widow of the deceased Nanda and other legal heirs. The court had also awarded the interest @ 12%. The present appeal was filed in the year 1997. After filing of the appeal in last two decades, law has undergone vast change. The courts have acknowledged the right of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and have construed strict liability of the service provider. Recently, a Single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Raman vs. State of Haryana & Others, CWP 14046 of 2012 (O & M), decided on 2.7.2013 for triple amputation of the limbs due to electrocution had awarded approximately Rs. 32,00,000/- as compensation. Recently, a Single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Raman vs. State of Haryana & Others, CWP 14046 of 2012 (O & M), decided on 2.7.2013 for triple amputation of the limbs due to electrocution had awarded approximately Rs. 32,00,000/- as compensation. Against the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, the State of Haryana and the Electricity Board had approached the Division Bench by filing an appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has not denied that Division Bench had reduced the amount. As a result thereof, the claimants had gone in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the judgment Raman vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., reported in 2015 ACJ 484 , has upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court. Time has come when electricity distributors in the State of Rajasthan must act in consonance with the changed dynamics of law and all the dispute pending in the old appeals ought to be gracefully settled by the service providers, to save themselves of litigations expenses. Once the matter has concluded upto the highest court of land, it is incumbent for the service providers to bow before the mandate of law gracefully, otherwise, service providers run risk of being fastened with exemplary costs. The learned counsel for the appellant who has very ably defended the service providers and as a good counsel has advanced all arguments available in his arsenal, has finally pleaded and prayed that one opportunity be granted to him to obtain instructions from his client regarding future course to be adopted in the cases of injury or death due to electrocution. This Court expect that those functionaries who hold public office, ought to be aware of the latest legal position, by yielding to persuasion of the learned counsel for the appellant. An adjournment as prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellant is granted. List this case for hearing on 3.3.2016. A copy of this order under the signatures and seal of the Court Master be handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant for onward transmission and necessary compliance." 5. Mr. An adjournment as prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellant is granted. List this case for hearing on 3.3.2016. A copy of this order under the signatures and seal of the Court Master be handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant for onward transmission and necessary compliance." 5. Mr. Alok Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-J.V.V.N.L. has submitted that after due consideration, electricity service provider has instructed him not to pursue the appeal filed by the electricity service provider and, hence, S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 264/1997 preferred by Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur & Others, be dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Furthermore, ld. counsel appearing for the appellants has placed on record a communication dated 02.03.2016 issued by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur, whereby decision was taken to withdraw the appeal. 7. In view of the decision taken by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 264/1997 preferred by the appellants-J.V.V.N.L., is, hereby, dismissed as withdrawn. 8. Now this Court shall decide the appeal preferred by the claimants. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the parties are in agreement that the age of the deceased was thirty-years and he was survived by a widow, three minor daughters and a son. The deceased was a permanent Class IV employee in the Municipal Council, Sambhar. He died on 22.08.1984 due to electrocution. 10. In the suit itself, the income of the deceased was averred as Rs. 719/- per month. 11. However, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that the ld. Court below has gravely erred in not awarding future prospects towards income of the deceased. 12. Counsel appearing for the claimants has placed reliance upon the case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, reported in A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 674, wherein three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that in case, deceased is less than forty-years of age and is self-employed with fixed wages, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. 13. Rajbir Singh and Others, reported in A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 674, wherein three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that in case, deceased is less than forty-years of age and is self-employed with fixed wages, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. 13. It will be apposite to note here Para 11 of the judgment rendered in the case of Rajesh & Others (supra):- "Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years." 14. The above view of the Supreme Court has been recently followed by another three-judge Bench in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, reported in MACD 2015 (SC) 139. 15. Following dictum of the ratio of law laid down in Rajesh and others (Supra) and Munna Lal Jain and another (supra), this Court is of the view that 50% of the actual income determined by the ld. tribunal is required to be added under the heading of "future prospects". 16. Since the deceased was a Govt. employee, this Court is of the view that in the present case, 50% is required to be added towards "future prospects". The ld. Court below, in all, has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards "loss of consortium", "loss of love, affection & parental guidance of the father to the children" and towards pain and agony suffered by the family members of the deceased. This Court is also of the view that the same is not in consonance with the prevailing law. 17. The ld. Court below, in all, has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards "loss of consortium", "loss of love, affection & parental guidance of the father to the children" and towards pain and agony suffered by the family members of the deceased. This Court is also of the view that the same is not in consonance with the prevailing law. 17. As a result of above discussions, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant-appellants by ld. tribunal is required to be reassessed as under:- SI. No. Heads Calculation (i) Income Rs. 719/- per month (ii) 50% of (i) above to be added as future prospects (Rs. 719/- + Rs. 359.50/- = Rs. 1078.50/- per month (iii) ¼th of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased (Rs. 1078.50/- - Rs. 269.62/- = Rs. 808.88/- per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied (Rs. 808.88/- x 12 x 18 = Rs. 1,74,718.08 (v) Loss of consortium Rs. 50,000/- (vi) Loss of care, affection & parental guidance of the father to four minor children Rs. 30,000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,20,000/- (vii) Loss of care & affection of the son to the mother Rs. 30,000/- (viii) Funeral expenses Rs. 15000/- Total compensation awarded Rs. 3,89,718/- 18. Thus, the amount awarded by ld. tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,89,718/- in above terms. The said amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 19. It is, hereby, ordered that the enhanced amount shall be kept in the Monthly Income Scheme in the post office initially for a lock-up period of three-years and the interest accrued upon the deposit shall be paid to the widow of deceased, and minor three minor daughter and a son proportionately, on monthly basis. 20. The mother of the deceased is held entitled to receive Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of care and affection of the son to the mother. 21. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur in the best interest of the claimants, shall keep the amount in the Monthly Income Scheme with the Indian Post Office and shall open three separate accounts in the name of each claimant. The amount due to minor daughters shall be encashed at the time of their marriage. 22. 21. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur in the best interest of the claimants, shall keep the amount in the Monthly Income Scheme with the Indian Post Office and shall open three separate accounts in the name of each claimant. The amount due to minor daughters shall be encashed at the time of their marriage. 22. However, a further direction is, hereby, issued to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur to acquaint the claimants regarding the amount, which has accrued to them by way of enhancement and the fact that the amount shall be kept in Monthly Income Scheme in the Indian Post Office for the benefit of the claimants. 23. The above direction regarding deposit in Monthly Income Scheme with Indian Post Office has been issued as it has been brought to the notice of this Court, that go-between or relations fritter away with amount awarded as compensation, on the ground that money has been spent towards litigation expenses. 24. With the above modification, S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 291/1997 stands disposed of. 25. Needless to say that the amount already received by the claimants will be deducted from the total amount reassessed by this Court. 26. Let a copy of this order be placed in the connected file.