JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Khambhalia in Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1989 awarding compensation of Rs. 8,20,160/- to the original plaintiff-respondent herein, the Appellant, which was earlier known as G.E.B, and is now known as Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, has filed this Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The brief facts of the Civil Suit is that the deceased was going to his field for round as a daily routine in the morning at 8.00 a.m., on the fateful day, a live electric wire was lying on the ground and due to electrocution, he died. The heirs of the deceased Mr. Lala Jeram filed Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1989, inter alia, narrating various aspects and claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakh with interest from the Appellant herein. 3. During the course of proceedings in trial Court, both the sides led evidence and after hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court awarded Rs.8,20,160/as compensation with interest at the rate of 15% thereof. 4. On the basis of the averments made, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues in the matter: (1) Whether plaintiffs proved that they are the heirs and defendants of deceased Lala Jeram? (2) Whether plaintiffs prove that deceased Lalabhai Jerambhai died due to the electric shock from the conductor lying on the earth snaped from the 11 K.V. Electric line of the defendant – G.E.Board near Nandana – Bhopalka Road? (3) Whether plaintiffs proved that the employees or the G.E.Board were negligent in maintaining of the above electric line? (4) Whether defendants prove that deceased Lalabhai Jerambhai was liable for his death for his contributory negligence? (5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the compensation? If yes, what would be the just and reasonable amount for the same? (6) To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled to? (7) What order and decree? 5. On the basis of the evidences lead and the submissions on behalf of both the sides, ultimately the issues have been answered in the following manner by the trial Court: (1) In the affirmative (2) In the affirmative. (3) In the affirmative. (4) In the Negative. (5) In the affirmative. Rs.8,20,160/- (6) As per Order. (7) As per final order. 6. (3) In the affirmative. (4) In the Negative. (5) In the affirmative. Rs.8,20,160/- (6) As per Order. (7) As per final order. 6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the Appellant preferred this Appeal. 7. The appellant contended that the wire was not loose on the previous day and it was found lying on the earth next day and as such the principle of “Res ipsa Lequitar” does not apply to the facts of this case. It is also contended that the defendant has raised the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the learned trial Court has committed error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. It is also contended that the trial Court has not properly considered the fact that the deceased was owing property and the said property was a joint family property and elder brothers of the deceased were managing the property. According to the appellant, cost of cultivation and the income of the deceased was not properly considered by the trial Court and considering the agricultural land, the cost would be the same even if the deceased was alive and there will be no difference even after the death of the deceased. It is also contended that there is no reliable source regarding the income of the deceased. It is also contended that without any basis of the actual income of the deceased, the learned trial Court has failed in appreciating this fact and amount of compensation awarded is erroneous. It is also contended that it is specific stand of the Appellant herein that the appellant is not responsible and the deceased has died due to his own negligence. 7.1 It is also contended that considering the factual aspect, the dependency ought to have been considered at 1/4th of the total income and his income, as per 1/4th of the total income, comes to Rs.9,500/. According to the appellant, the total compensation would come to Rs.4,98,000/. It is also contended that considering the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, Rs.2,49,000/is required to be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,98,000/. It is also contended that the compensation amount of Rs.8,20,160/is exorbitant and highly excessive and requires to be reconsidered by this Appellate Court. Ultimately, the Appellant has prayed to setaside the impugned judgment and decree. 8. Heard learned counsel Mr. Premal Joshi for the Appellant and Mr. A.R.Sanjanwala for Ms. It is also contended that the compensation amount of Rs.8,20,160/is exorbitant and highly excessive and requires to be reconsidered by this Appellate Court. Ultimately, the Appellant has prayed to setaside the impugned judgment and decree. 8. Heard learned counsel Mr. Premal Joshi for the Appellant and Mr. A.R.Sanjanwala for Ms. Megha Jani, learned counsel for the respondent. Peruse the material placed on record. 9. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Appellant has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the Appeal Memo. However, he has submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the Appellant and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased, even in that case, the amount of compensation is required to be reduced, considering the fact that the land occupied by the deceased is of joint property and, therefore, earning of Rs.12,000/per month could also be required to be considered in light of the facts that there was the joint property. According to him, the amount of 1/3rd of Rs.12,000/i. e. Rs.4000/can be considered as income of the deceased. He has also submitted that the multiplier of 24, as applied by the trial Court, is not in consonance with the Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act wherein maximum multiplier is 17. While referring the said Schedule, learned counsel Mr. Joshi submitted that considering the age of the deceased to be 35 years, maximum multiplier applicable would be 15. 9.1 Mr. Joshi, learned counsel has also contended that considering Rs.4000/as dependency amount and considering further income from Bauxite and then applying multiplier, the calculation of the amount would come to Rs.4,98,000/. He has also submitted that earlier this Court in Civil Application No.5130 of 1995 filed in the present Appeal, has passed an Order of depositing the amount and accordingly the Appellant has already deposited the amount. 9.2 According to him, even the rate of interest is on higher side. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has also submitted that for calculation of the compensation, some base is required to be taken into consideration. One of which is Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act. 9.2 According to him, even the rate of interest is on higher side. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has also submitted that for calculation of the compensation, some base is required to be taken into consideration. One of which is Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act. He has submitted that if that Schedule is considered, the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court is exorbitant and the same is required to be interfered with and necessary modification be made in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court. 9.3 Mr. Joshi, learned advocate has relied on the decision in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . It is submitted that the multiplier of 24 is higher side and it should not be more than 16 multiplier. 10. Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala, learned for Ms. Megha Jani, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that even if the say of the appellant is accepted, then in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the amount of award would be the same. The trial Court has also considered the amount of Rs.50,000/as annual income of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, considering the age of the deceased as 35 years, additional income to the tune of Rs.12,500/is required to be added and the amount of total income would come to Rs.62,500/. It is also submitted that considering the age of the deceased, if multiplier of 16 is applied, then amount would come to Rs.10 lakh and out of this, as the deceased has more than 5 members, 1/5th of income is required to be deducted for his personal expenses. According to him, if the calculation is made on the aforesaid basis, then the amount for personal income would come to Rs.2 lakh and, therefore, deducting this amount from Rs.10 lakh, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.8 lakh. According to him, even if the submission of Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Appellant is accepted, then also, there would be no material change in the amount awarded. While referring to the aforesaid decision, Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala submitted that this Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10.1 Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala, learned advocate for Ms. According to him, even if the submission of Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Appellant is accepted, then also, there would be no material change in the amount awarded. While referring to the aforesaid decision, Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala submitted that this Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10.1 Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala, learned advocate for Ms. Megha Jani, learned advocate for the respondent has relied on the decision in case of Sagoobai and others v. Sohanlal and others, reported in 1992 ACJ 304 (MP High Court) and has submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is proper and no interference is required. He has prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 11. The following points arises for adjudication of present Appeal: (1) Whether the trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in assessing the compensation of Rs.8,20,160/? (2) Whether the learned trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff i.e. respondent herein? (3) What is just compensation payable to the Plaintiff-respondent? (4) What order and decree? 12. My findings on the above points for the reasons given below, are as under: (1) Affirmative. (2) Affirmative. (3) Rs.6,65,120/+ interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on it. (4) As per final order. 13. Now, considering the material placed on record, it appears that there is no dispute as to the electric line wire being lying on the earth and the death of deceased due to electrocution. It is also found from the evidence that present appellant has failed to prove its version that the deceased was also negligent and there is a contributory negligence on his part. 14. It appears from the Postmortem report that the deceased had died due to electrocution and his age is shown as 35 years. It appears that the Appellant side has not lead any evidence. 15. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Sagoobai and others v. Sohanlal and others (Supra) in Para5 has observed as under: “5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants has submitted that the earnings from agricultural property can be attributed mainly to the two factors, namely, the contribution of the land and the contribution of labour by the tiller. 15. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Sagoobai and others v. Sohanlal and others (Supra) in Para5 has observed as under: “5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants has submitted that the earnings from agricultural property can be attributed mainly to the two factors, namely, the contribution of the land and the contribution of labour by the tiller. On a reasonable estimate it can be fairly presumed that the contribution of land and labour to the earnings from agricultural lands is half and half and on such assumption the learned Tribunal should have assessed the earning capacity of the deceased. In my opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants deserves to be accepted. 16. The Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi and other (Supra), has considered various earlier judgments, including Sarla Verma judgment and has ultimately lead the principle of considering the compensation as under in Para 59: “59. in view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions: 59.1 The two Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. 59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/and Rs. 15,000/respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years”. 17. On perusal of the evidence produced on record, it is crystal clear that the deceased was having agricultural land and as per the revenue record at Exh25 to 34, it appears that it stands on sole name of deceased Lala Jeram. It also appears from the deposition of Tejiben Plaintiff No.1 at Exh36 that the witness has stated that there is no partition of land and land is being shown in the name of his father-in-law. She has stated that her deceased husband was maintaining the Account regarding the income of agricultural land. It also reveals from her evidence that on the date of deposition, the land is being used for grazing purpose. 18. It also reflects from Exh39 that there was an agreement for mining of bauxite between the deceased and another person. The agreement at Page14 also reveals that it as between deceased Lala Jeram and Chimanlal Himmatlal, and that he has given his land for mining purpose on yearly rent of Rs.84,000/. It appears from the same that it was to be lasted till 30.6.1990. 19. The agreement at Page14 also reveals that it as between deceased Lala Jeram and Chimanlal Himmatlal, and that he has given his land for mining purpose on yearly rent of Rs.84,000/. It appears from the same that it was to be lasted till 30.6.1990. 19. Now, on perusal of the evidence on record, it clearly transpires that the deceased has died due to electrocution and there was no contributory negligence on his part. The question in this matter is regarding the just compensation to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. It comes from the record that there was agricultural land in his own name out which some parcel of land is given for mining at the rate of Rs.84,000/yearly and this agreement was to last till 30.6.1990. Thus, after death of the deceased, the same would have been extended or not is a question. It is uncertain as to whether such agreement would have been extended or not in future also. However, the fact remains that the deceased had agricultural land in his name and there was earning from agricultural land. At this point, it is required to be mentioned that learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the Appellant, while relying on the decision reported in case of Sagoobai and others v. Sohanlal and other supra) submitted that out of income from the agricultural land, ½ of the amount should be deducted for labour charges. Now, in the present case, it has not been brought on record the facts that the deceased was paying any amount to the labourers. This facts could have been brought on record by way of crossexamination of plaintiff i.e. by putting questions to the plaintiff in her crossexamination. It is the stand of the plaintiff that the deceased was getting Rs.12,000/as yearly income. 19.1 Generally, while calculating the yearly income from the agricultural work, the expenses incurred towards labour charges, seeds, fertilizers, etc. are deducted from the gross net thereof and thereby the net income is arrived at. 19.2 In this case, the plaintiff has categorically stated that the deceased was getting income of Rs.12,000/which means the amount was net amount. It reveals from the document of lease that the deceased has income from the lease of parcel of his land and the agreed amount was Rs.84,000/yearly. 20. 19.2 In this case, the plaintiff has categorically stated that the deceased was getting income of Rs.12,000/which means the amount was net amount. It reveals from the document of lease that the deceased has income from the lease of parcel of his land and the agreed amount was Rs.84,000/yearly. 20. The learned trial Court has considered income of the deceased on the basis of the revenue record as well as various citations relied on by both the sides. The trial Court has calculated the income under agricultural and considered as Rs.12,000/and from the Bauxite, income is considered as Rs.38,000/and in all the total income is considered as Rs.50,000/per annum. Thus, calculating Rs.50,000/as total income, 1/3rd is deducted for the personal expenditure of the deceased and thereby consider the compensation as Rs.33,340/to be payable to the heirs of the deceased, and the trial Court has applied multiplier of 24, and therefore, it comes to Rs.8,00,160/payable to the plaintiff. In addition to it, the trial Court has also granted Rs.15000/towards mental pain and shock and Rs.5000/towards after death rituals. Thus, Rs.8,20,160/has been treated as compensation payable to the plaintiff. 21. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the figure arrived at by the learned trial Court has based only on the original income of the deceased and no prospective income has been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. 22. In view of the judgment referred to above, the multiplier applied by the trial Court is on higher side. As a guide, the Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act under Section 163A for applying multiplier can be taken into consideration. 23. On doing so, as per the Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the decisions relied on by both the sides, in present case, it is admitted fact that the deceased was of the age of 35 years at the time of incident. There is no cogent evidence regarding the birth date of the deceased. It appears from the Postmortem Report that the age of the deceased has been shown as 35 years. Considering the facts narrated in the Postmortem Note, the age of the deceased could be taken into consideration as 35 years and accordingly multiplier of 16 is applicable. There is no cogent evidence regarding the birth date of the deceased. It appears from the Postmortem Report that the age of the deceased has been shown as 35 years. Considering the facts narrated in the Postmortem Note, the age of the deceased could be taken into consideration as 35 years and accordingly multiplier of 16 is applicable. 23.1 On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is found that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the addition of prospective income and has applied multiplier of 24. The application of multiplier of 24 is on very higher side, which requires to be reduced to 16. At the same time, as prospective income is not taken into consideration, the same is required to be considered. This aspect is required to be taken into consideration while arriving at the just compensation payable to the heirs of the deceased. Even in case of accidental death by vehicular, the Apex Court has in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others (Supra) has elaborately discussed this aspect in Para 59, which is referred earlier, and has specifically concluded that in case of deceased on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. Thus, in this case, considering the age of the deceased to be of 35 years, addition of income is required to be calculated on the basis of 40% of the established income of the deceased. 24. In this case, it is apparent from the record that lease for mining was to end in the year 30.6.1990. Therefore, whatever income that has been generated from the certain part of the land by mining of the bauxite,whether in future same would have been generated from this source is a question of fact and no presumption regarding income from that source could be made as a permanent income. 25. Therefore, whatever income that has been generated from the certain part of the land by mining of the bauxite,whether in future same would have been generated from this source is a question of fact and no presumption regarding income from that source could be made as a permanent income. 25. Now, further, so far as the question of deduction for personal income is concerned, it is worthwhile to refer to Para37 of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others (Supra), which reads as under: “37. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 37 (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 31 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 25.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court has also referred to the decision in cases of Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. 25.2 While referring to the Para30, 31, 32 of the Sarla Varma’s decision, it has been observed that where the deceased was married, the deduction for personal and living expenses should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th), where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependent family members is 6. 26. Now, in this case, as per the plaint as well as the Appeal Memo, it is admitted fact that the number of dependents are 6 and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the deduction for personal living and expenses could be only 1/5th and not 1/3rd,as has been done by the trial Court. 27. On perusal of the evidences on record, it reveals that the trial Court has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- from the agricultural land and Rs.38,000/- from the Bauxite. But the question is whether the income from the lease for mining of Bauxite would have been constant for entire life is doubtful. However, the fact remains that at the relevant time the deceased had given his portion of land for mining of bauxite. But the question is whether the income from the lease for mining of Bauxite would have been constant for entire life is doubtful. However, the fact remains that at the relevant time the deceased had given his portion of land for mining of bauxite. Therefore, some income is required to be considered for determining the compensation in this case. Some guess work is required to be done as there is no cogent evidence regarding the exact income of the deceased. Considering the overall evidences on record, the income of the deceased could be considered at Rs.36,000/per annum which may include income from agricultural as well as by use of land for any other purpose. In addition to it, prospective income is also needed to be added. Therefore, in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to hereinabove, 40% of it is required to be added for prospective income. On doing so, the prospective income will come to Rs.14,400/. The total income will come to Rs.50,400/. It is an admitted fact that the deceased had 6 members in his family and, therefore, out of the aforesaid amount, 1/5th of it i.e. Rs.10,080/is required to be deducted. On doing so, the amount would come to Rs.40,320/, which is dependency amount. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 16 needs to be applied and not 24. Therefore, total compensation on the basis of the income would come to Rs.6,45,120/. In addition to it, the amount of consortium as well as death ceremony, which is awarded to the tune of Rs.15,000/plus Rs.5000/respectively, which can also be awarded to the heirs of the deceased. On doing so, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.6,65,120/. It goes without saying that the interest payable is fixed at 15%, which is also being endorsed by this Court in the interim order passed in Civil Application No.5130/1995 in the present Appeal. 28. In view of the above the impugned judgment and decree, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.8,20,160/is required to be modified to the extent that the Appellant shall pay the compensation of Rs.6,65,120/to the heirs of the deceased with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of filing of the suit till the actual payment is made. The amount, if any, deposited during the pendency of this Appeal, may be setoff to the Appellant. The amount, if any, deposited during the pendency of this Appeal, may be setoff to the Appellant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 29. In view of the above discussion, the present Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Khambhalia in Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1989 is modified to the extent that instead of compensation amount of Rs.8,20,120/, the compensation amount is reduced to Rs.6,65,120/and the same shall be liable to be paid by the present Appellant, along with the interest at the rate of 15% from the date of filing of the suit till actual realisation. The amount, if any, deposited by the Appellant pending the Appeal, should be setoff. The amount of the compensation as determined by this Court be paid to the heirs of the deceased-respondent herein in equal share. Necessary decree to be drawn accordingly. The R&P, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith with copy of decree. No order as to costs.