JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant who is original plaintiff has preferred this First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, contending that he has preferred Special Civil Suit No.15 of 1995 before the learned Civil Judge (S.D), at Jamnagar claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- for the fatal injuries suffered by him on account of electric shock due to negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondents-defendants herein. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is that he is an agriculturists and his family holds 100 Bighas of land on separate name of the family members. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he exclusively looks after cultivation of his land and of the land of his family members. According to him, on the date of incident i.e. 6.9.1995, he was 23 years of age, unmarried and pursuing his education in school as well during agriculture work. He has averred that on the date of the incident, he had gone to his father's land along with few labourers to sprinkle insecticides. At around 7.30 in the morning, when he was approaching a small hut in the Farm, a live Electric high-tension wire fell on his and he suffered severe burn injuries and other electric shock related injuries. It is his contention that his right hand was amputated from the shoulder with two operations, the third operation was carried out to fill-up a cavity developed on his one thigh. It is his contention that he had developed cataract on his eyes on account of electric shock, his right eye was operated to remove cataract from his eye. He has also averred that due to cataract, which happened due to this electric cataract, the capacity of the appellant to see has substantially reduced and some of his fingers of his remaining hand and of one leg have become senseless and the injuries are of permanent nature and he has become physically impaired. 2.1 He has also averred that the Doctor has also issued necessary certificate giving percentage of permanent disabilities suffered by him. He has also contended that by the aforesaid pleadings he has claimed the aforesaid compensation from the respondent-defendant because of whose negligence of not maintaining the high-tension wire, he has suffered permanent disabilities as well as permanent loss. 3. 2.1 He has also averred that the Doctor has also issued necessary certificate giving percentage of permanent disabilities suffered by him. He has also contended that by the aforesaid pleadings he has claimed the aforesaid compensation from the respondent-defendant because of whose negligence of not maintaining the high-tension wire, he has suffered permanent disabilities as well as permanent loss. 3. According to the Appellant-plaintiff, the defendant herein has admitted the fact that the Appellant has received fatal injuries due to electric shock. However, it is the case of the defendant-respondent that falling of live electric high-tension wire was as act of God. 4. The Appellant has also averred that by leading evidence he has already proved the entire facts and the learned Court below has committed serious error of fact and law in awarding only Rs.2,55,000/-as compensation though there was almost 90% disablement to his body. He has also contended that the monthly income ought to have considered as per the version of the plaintiff and, therefore, the Appeal may be allowed to the extent that compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-, as claimed by him, with necessary interest be passed in his favour. 5. Heard Mr. Vedant Rajyaguru, learned advocate for Mr. A.J.Yagnik, learned advocate for the appellant-plaintiff and Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the respondent at length. Perused the material placed on record and the impugned judgment. 6. The plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No. 15/95 before the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Jamnagar for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% thereon and the cost of the Suit on the allegation that due to falling of high tension wire, he got electric shock and due to that his arm was amputated and there were other injuries and due to that, as per the Certificate of the Doctor, there was 90% disability in his body and that has resulted into loss of income. While narrating the various treatment taken by the plaintiff, he has stated that at the relevant time, he was earning Rs.2 lakh per annum by agricultural work and now he has to engage labourers and he has to pay Rs.8000/- yearly to them. According to his calculation, he is entitled to get Rs.12,65,000/-, however, he has restricted his claim to Rs.7,50,000/-. 7. The stand of the respondent-original defendant is total denial of any negligence on their part. According to his calculation, he is entitled to get Rs.12,65,000/-, however, he has restricted his claim to Rs.7,50,000/-. 7. The stand of the respondent-original defendant is total denial of any negligence on their part. The defendant has filed reply at Exh8 wherein it was accepted that there was electric shock to the plaintiff, however, it is stated that there was no negligence as the line is frequently being checked by the maintenance staff of the defendant. It is narrated by respondent-defendant therein that the incident has happened as it was Monsoon and was raining, and due to wind, the binding from the insulators on the pole might have been broken and fallen on the land and because of that it might not be possible for the plaintiff to have knowledge of this wire being on land. According to the defendant, as this is an act of God, the respondent is not liable to pay anything to the plaintiff. 8. It appears from the record that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed the issues at Exh16 which are as under: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he had received electric shock injury of the defendant's electric live wire as alleged in the plaint? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the disputed incident was happened due to the negligency of the defendant board as alleged in the plaint? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover Rs.7,00,000/- as a compensation from the defendant-board? 4. What amount the plaintiff is entitled to? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest. If yes, at what rate? 6. Whether the defendants prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear present suit of the plaintiff? 7. What order and decree? 9. It appears from the record that the plaintiff had examined himself at Exh18, examined witness Hajimamad at Exh36, witness Hanifa Noormamad at Exh37 and Dr. Hasmukh Gokaldas at Exh38. He has also produced documentary evidences to the following effect: Exhibit Particulars 19 Injury Certificate of Irvin Hospital 20 Xerox of Card of Irvin Hospital 21 Permanent disability certificate issued by Irvin Hospital 22 Certified copy of Janvajog entry No.35/94 at Lalpur Police Station 23 Certified copy of panchnama of the place of incident 24 Certificate issued by Dr.Sanjay Patel 25 Medical Bill 26 Bill issued by Dr. Hasmukh Patel 27 Marksheet of the Appellant-plaintiff of Class-XI. 28 Photograph of the appellant-plaintiff's injury 29 to 33 Certified copy of Revenue Record 34 Xerox copy of Sale-deed. 10. The defendant has examined Dineshchandra Devchandra Maru at Exh43 and has produced the following documentary evidences: Exhibit Particulars 44 Copy of Accident Report 45 Performance of the accident report 46 Accident Report 47 Sight Sketch 48 Investigation Report. 11. After perusal of the evidence on record and hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court has decided the aforesaid issues, in Para5 of the Judgment, as under: (1) In the affirmative; (2) In the affirmative; (3) Partly in affirmative; (4) Rs.2,55,000/- (5) Affirmative at the rate of 15% (6) In negative; (7) As per final order. 12. The following points arise for the determination of the present Appeal: (1) Whether the learned trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in holding that the plaintiff has suffered electric shock due to negligence on the part of defendant? (2) Whether the learned trial Court has committed serious error of fact and law in awarding Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% to the plaintiff? (3) If the answer to Point No.2 is in affirmative then, what should be the just compensation payable to the plaintiff? (4) What order and decree? 13. My findings on the above points, for the reasons given below, are as under: (1) In Negative. (2) Partly in affirmative. (3) As per final order. (4) As per final order. 14. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that there is consensus between the parties that the plaintiff has suffered due to electrocution due to live hightension wire of the defendant. The dispute revolves around the fact as to what should be just compensation in the present case. For that purpose, from the material placed on record, it clearly transpires that the plaintiff has sustained injuries due to falling of live High Tension Wire. It also appears from the documentary evidence, as referred to hereinabove, which shows that the plaintiff was agriculturists and he had to undergo medical treatment and he was operated thrice. It also reveals from the oral evidence of both the sides that immediately the Plaintiff has informed the duty constable at the hospital. It also appears from the documentary evidence, as referred to hereinabove, which shows that the plaintiff was agriculturists and he had to undergo medical treatment and he was operated thrice. It also reveals from the oral evidence of both the sides that immediately the Plaintiff has informed the duty constable at the hospital. It also reveals that necessary documentary evidence in the shape of medical certificate as well as revenue records are produced in support of plaintiff’s version that he was earning due to electrocution he has become disabled. The factum of injury due to High Tension Live Wire is established. 15. Now, regarding determination of the compensation amount, it appears from the impugned judgment that the learned trial Court has considered the income of the plaintiff at Rs.3000/- per month and out of this amount he had deducted Rs.500/- for personal expenses of plaintiff and therefore the loss of income has been considered as Rs.2500/- per month and yearly at Rs.30,000/-. The learned trial Court has also considered that the disability is up to 50% and, therefore, while determining the permanent disability, out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.15000/- has to be deducted and, therefore, the amount for considering the compensation is considered at Rs.15,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the plaintiff as 23 years, multiplier of 15 has been applied and accordingly, the loss of income has been calculated at Rs.2,25,000/- In addition to this, Rs.10000/-has been awarded for medical expenses, attendance charges, etc. and Rs.20,000/- for shock and sufferings and in all the trial Court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,55,000/- and allowed the interest at the rate of 15%. 16. In this regard, learned advocate for the plaintiff has vehemently submitted that as per the Schedule attached to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, considering the amputation of the right hand through shoulder joint and disfigurement of left leg and one finger, there is 90% disability. He has contended that against this 90%, the learned trial Court has considered only 50% and loss of income is also on lower side. According to him, as the functional disability is 90%, the disability ought to have been considered at 27,000/- per annum. He has contended that against this 90%, the learned trial Court has considered only 50% and loss of income is also on lower side. According to him, as the functional disability is 90%, the disability ought to have been considered at 27,000/- per annum. Regarding multiplier, it is submitted that the multiplier of 15 is on lower side and considering the age of the present Appellant and considering the decision reported in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017(3) GLH 563, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. According to the calculation of the plaintiff-appellant, the compensation for loss of future income of earning capacity ought to have been considered at Rs.4,86,000/- and for loss of income for 2 months, Rs.5000/- ought to have been added and for attendant charges, etc. ought to have been considered at Rs.20,000/- and loss of amenities of life at Rs.25,000/-. It is contended that considering all these figures the compensation ought to have been considered at Rs.5,61,000/-. He has prayed to allow the Appeal accordingly. 17. Per contra, Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that considering the disability as 90% of one hand, the disability ought to have been considered as 45% only. She has also contended that the disability in relation to eyesight is also not proper. She has also contended that regarding income, it appears from the record that the brother and father of the appellant are also working in the field and, therefore, the income of the present Appellant– original plaintiff can be considered accordingly. She has also contended that 1/3 amount is required to be deducted for personal expenses of the injured and multiplier may be considered according to the age of the appellant. She has prayed to pass necessary order accordingly. 18. Now, considering the totality facts of the case, it is found that the plaintiff has sustained injury due to fault on the part of the defendant-respondent in maintaining their high-tension wire. It is also admitted fact that the plaintiff has suffered loss and there is disability in the shape of amputation of one hand and there is damage to his eye sight and leg. The Doctor has also considered the disability as 90% body as a whole. It is also admitted fact that the plaintiff has suffered loss and there is disability in the shape of amputation of one hand and there is damage to his eye sight and leg. The Doctor has also considered the disability as 90% body as a whole. Now, so far as the consideration of capacity of the person due to such disability, the effect on his earning capacity could be considered as 50% body as a whole. It is not the case of the plaintiff that now he cannot work and is not in a position to work again due to such injury and, therefore, the injury for considering the disability of 50% body as a whole is required to be considered. 19. It is pertinent to note that there is no denial that the injured was having agricultural land and due to amputation of one hand, he might not be in a position to earn the same amount, which he was earning at the relevant time. It is pertinent to note that there is no denial that the injured was having agricultural land for cultivation as there is no specific evidence regarding his actual income, some guess work is required to be done. Considering the evidence on record, income of the plaintiff may be considered as Rs.3000/- per month. Therefore, his yearly income would come to Rs.36,000/-. It is revealed from the evidence that the plaintiff has suffered loss of one hand and has got defect in his eyes due to electrocution. In view of this, the functional disability may be considered as 50% body as a whole. On doing so, the loss of future income would be Rs.18,000/- i.e. ½ of the early income of the Rs.36,000. 20. Now considering the age of the appellant-plaintiff, multiplier of 18 could be applied to the aforesaid figure of Rs.18,000/-. On doing so, loss of future income would come to Rs.3,24,000/-. It also appears from the evidence that his hand has been amputated and operation was conducted thrice for the same hand and there was operation in the eyes and, therefore, during that period when he was hospitalised, he would have suffered actual loss of income and for that purpose, 4 months of actual loss of income at the rate of Rs.3000/-, in all Rs.12,000/- can be awarded to him. It is also admitted fact that he has undergone treatment and, therefore, he might have incurred expenses towards medicine, transportation, rich diet, etc. and for that purpose if Rs.20,000/- is allowed, it would be just and proper. In addition to it, for pain, shock and sufferings, if Rs.20,000/- is allowed, it will be just and proper. On doing so, the total amount of compensation would be as under: Loss of future income Rs.3,24,000=00 Loss of actual income Rs. 12,000=00 Expenses towards medical treatment Transportation, rich diet, etc : Rs. 20,000=00 Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 20,000=00 Total Rs.3,76,000=00 21. The appellant-plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.3,76,000/- amount from the respondent with interest. 22. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is found that the learned trial Court has committed error of facts and law in calculating and awarding the compensation. Therefore, the impugned judgment is required to be modified so far as the amount of compensation is concerned. 23. It is also pertinent to note that the trial Court has granted Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 15%. Now considering enhancement of the compensation, the interest rate on the enhanced amount is required to be considered at 6% from the date of the judgment of this Court till realisation thereof. 24. In view of the above discussion, the points as stated hereinabove, are decided accordingly. 25. In view of the above, the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed and it is accordingly allowed. The defendant-respondent is hereby directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,76,000/- with interest @ 15% on Rs.2,55,000/- from the date of filing of the Suit and with interest @6% on enhanced amount of Rs.1,21,000/- from the date of the present order till realisation, along with the costs throughout to the plaintiff-appellant. If the defendant has paid any amount, then, such amount be deducted from the awarded amount. Necessary decree be drawn in this Appeal accordingly. The R&P along with the copy of this judgment and decree be sent to trial Court forthwith.