Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1604 (RAJ)

Kanya v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

2017-07-20

JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA

body2017
JUDGMENT : JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA, J. These two appeals arising out of the same incident and facts being identical, are being decided by this common order. SB Civil First Appeal No. 217/1996 (Kanya v. JVVNL, Jaipur). 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Mr. Sheoji was engaged in the trade of camels and on 24.03.1989 Mr. Sheoji and Mr. Sailani were going together from village Gadwari to Manoharpur on their camel. When they reached Kharya Nala at about 8-9 P.M. at that particular point of time, the camel came in close contact of electric wire in which current was flowing, as a consequence thereof Mr. Sheoji & Mr. Sailani, also came in close contact of electric wire & received shock as a result of which Mr. Sailani died on the spot & Mr. Sheoji became unconscious & expired thereafter on 28.03.1989 at SMS Hospital, Jaipur. It was claimed that the electric wire was situated on the side where the camel was going and broken electric wire was lying down in which the current was flowing and at that particular point of time, the deceased Mr. Sheoji was aged about 36 years and it was claimed that he was engaged in the trade of camels and apart from the said business, was also engaged in the business of playing music on drum (Nagada) & flute and was earning about Rs. 2,000/- per month. It was claimed that the claimants were dependent on the earnings of Mr. Sheoji and claimed an amount of Rs. 5,43,000/- as damages/compensation. SB Civil First Appeal No. 29/1997 (Smt. Shanti wife of Late Shri Ram Prasad v. JVVNl, Jaipur) 3. In this case, the facts remains the same as the deceased Mr. Sailani was also with Mr. Sheoji on the same camel but Mr. Sailani is said to be aged about 29 years only and it was claimed that he was earning an amount of Rs. 900/- per month and claimed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation/damages. 4. Apart from the above, it was also claimed that in the said accident/incident, the camel also died and therefore, claim of camel has also been claimed by the claimants. 5. 900/- per month and claimed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation/damages. 4. Apart from the above, it was also claimed that in the said accident/incident, the camel also died and therefore, claim of camel has also been claimed by the claimants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the negligence of the respondent-department has been proved by elaborate discussion made by the Trial Court and finding has been recorded in this regard which has attained finality because the respondent-department has not chosen to file any appeal and thus, submits that in so far as the negligence is concerned, it is well proved. 6. Counsel further contends that the amount allowed by the Trial Court is virtually denying any amount on account of compensation/damages as admittedly two persons have died and both were young having long life to live while in the case of Mr. Sheoji on account of his death, his wife Kanya became widow at young age of less than 30 years and had also 5 children and mother, in all 6 people, who were dependents on the earnings of Mr. Sheoji and the family suffered heavily on account of sudden unfortunate accidental death of Mr. Sheoji. 7. Counsel claims that in the other appeal, Mr. Sailani was aged about 29 years only and he was earning well and would have earned more over the years and both the claimants being mother and father being at an advanced age, lost their only son, who was taking care of both of them, and thus, claims that the amount allowed by the Trial Court at Rs. 70,000/- in both the cases each is ridiculously low without any basis or evidence and rather there is no reasoning at all by the Trial Court as to how and in what manner, the said amount of Rs. 70,000/- is to be allowed in both the cases. Counsel also claims that this is sufficient evidence to justify that both the persons were young & energetic and were totally devoted in their business, working in their own rights and were maintaining their family well & such a paltry amount in the death cases is unheard of. 8. 70,000/- is to be allowed in both the cases. Counsel also claims that this is sufficient evidence to justify that both the persons were young & energetic and were totally devoted in their business, working in their own rights and were maintaining their family well & such a paltry amount in the death cases is unheard of. 8. Counsel contends that reasonable and fair compensation is required to be allowed and the same principle would apply as in the case of Motor Vehicle Act where in number of cases, the Apex Court have given guidelines to assess/allow fair compensation. 9. Per-contra, ld. counsel for the respondent contends that there was no evidence placed on record by the claimants-appellants in bringing on record the income earned by the said two persons and no corroborating evidence was given and mere version by the family members without evidence cannot be considered at all. In support of the earning at least some credible evidence ought to have been brought on record by the claimants-appellants and the Trial Court had no option except to assume compensation to the extent of Rs. 70,000/- which in the facts & circumstances of the case cannot be said to be low particularly when the incident occurred on 24th March, 1989 i.e. more than 28 years back and though the amount may seem to be low now but the facts and material of 1989 is required to be considered & taken into consideration. He also relied on the notification of Minimum Wages Act by which he contends that if the same is applied even Rs. 70,000/- is not allowable. Thus, claims that there is no interference required in the instant case and the appeals deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. The facts are not disputed that unfortunately two persons died in the said accident/incident on account of electrical wire which had broken, was lying on the way & current was flowing therein, where the camel was carrying the aforesaid two persons, came in close contact and got electrocuted. 12. The Trial Court has held the negligence of the respondent-department and such a finding has not been challenged by way of an appeal/cross objections by the respondent, therefore, the negligence is well proved. 12. The Trial Court has held the negligence of the respondent-department and such a finding has not been challenged by way of an appeal/cross objections by the respondent, therefore, the negligence is well proved. The postmortem report also does indicate that the cause of death is “shocking and septicaemia brought about as per the result of electrical and flame burn as mentioned all burns are Ante-mortem in nature”. Thus, insofar as the negligence or cause of death is concerned, it is well proved. 13. The only question now boils down as to what should be the fair compensation in a case like this. A bare perusal of the impugned order, reveals that the Trial Court has not justified or given any basis as to how it holds an amount of Rs. 70,000/- each in both the cases to be reasonable. These are two cases of death and particularly of two young people; one Mr. Sheoji, who was aged about 36 years & another Mr. Sailani being just about 29 years of age & both were hale and hearty and would have long life to live and would have earned more over the years to come. It is claimed that both were maintaining their families, while in the case of Mr. Sheoji, the family was large of 7 members including wife, mother & 5 children & while in the case of Mr. Sailani, he was maintaining both parents and on account of unfortunate accident/incident, a sudden break came up in the life of two families disturbing not only the mental peace but also financial burden on the two families. 14. The Apex Court time and again has held that fair compensation/damages are required to be allowed. It may be that the incident is of the year 1989 but that does not mean that fair amount is not required to be allowed. 15. Though, there may not be any supporting material or evidence in support of earnings of the aforesaid two persons but at least some material has been brought on record by the claimants about their earning capacity and certainly two young people would certainly earn to maintain their family and would toil hard in earning sufficient amount to maintain their families. In my view, the principles to allow fair compensation/damages under the Motor Vehicle Act, are applicable on the facts of the instant case. 16. In my view, the principles to allow fair compensation/damages under the Motor Vehicle Act, are applicable on the facts of the instant case. 16. The Apex Court as well as this Court has time and again, has held that fair compensation is required to be allowed, income even if not properly proved, can be assumed by a Court looking to the age & other factors. The Apex Court has held that future prospects even in a case of Barber, Vendor & Hawker is required to be taken into consideration according to the age of the deceased by 50% or by 30% as the case may be. Not only that the Apex Court has been fair enough to allow substantial amount by way of Loss of Love and Affection, Consortium and on account of Funeral Expenses as well including Loss of Estate etc. In my view, the amount allowed at Rs. 70,000/- is indeed unreasonable being much on the lower side. Without going further in the case and taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court in: Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 : 2014 (2) RLW 1185 (SC), Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421 : 2012 (3) RLW 2023 (SC), Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 : 2013 (2) RLW 1589 (SC), Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 (4) RLW 2785 (SC), Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways (2014) 1 TAC 711 (SC), G. Dhanasekar v. M.D. Metropolitan Trarnsport Corporation Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 2008-2009/2014 arising out of SLP Nos. 35565-35566 decided on 12.02.2014 = 2014 (2) RLW 1461 (SC) & Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company (2014) 1 TAC 369 (SC) : 2015 (1) RLW 191 (SC) and also judgments rendered by this Court in the case of R.S.R.T.C. v. Pusha Ram I (2014) ACC 37 (Raj.), Smt. Savita Sharma v. Kailash Chand 2014 (1) WLC (Raj.) 128, Sona v. Ajit Mohammad (CMA No. 3120/2009) decided on 18.09.2013 and taking into consideration the settled principle that fair compensation is to be allowed, the claim is required to be enhanced. 17. Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid and overall facts, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to allow an amount of Rs. 17. Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid and overall facts, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to allow an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the case of Kanya v. JVVNL, Jaipur in SB Civil First Appeal No. 217/1996. 18. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, since Mr. Sailani being bachelor and unmarried, it would be appropriate to allow an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation/damages. 19. Accordingly, while in the case of Kanya v. JVVNL, Jaipur in SB Civil First Appeal No. 217/1996, the claim is enhanced by Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rs. 2,50,000/- — Rs. 70,000/-) and in the case of Mr. Sailani in SB Civil First Appeal No. 29/1997, the claim is enhanced by Rs. 1,30,000/- (2,00,000/- - Rs. 70,000/-) which will be additionally paid by the respondent along with interest @ 12% per annum within a period of two months from today. 20. Consequently, both the appeals are thus partly allowed in the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.