JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Doda (hereinafter to be referred as “the trial court”), whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of compensation filed against the defendants/respondents has been decreed and an amount of Rs. 2,18,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded as compensation in his favour. The appellant being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the trial court has sought enhancement of the compensation. 2. It appears that the appellant/plaintiff filed an application under Order 33 of CPC for grant of permission to file a suit as an indigent person for recovery of an amount of Rs. 20.00 lacs as compensation for the disability suffered by him due to electrocution. Vide order dated 22.01.2014, passed by the learned trial court, the appellant/plaintiff was declared as an indigent person and he was permitted to file the suit as such. 3. It was pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that on 27.05.2012, when he was proceeding from his house towards the house of his brother at village Khanpura Figsoo, Tehsil Thatri, all of a sudden High Tension (HT) electricity line fell down and it touched Low Tension (LT) line, which in turn fell on the service line of his brother’s residence. The service line fell on plaintiff/appellant, as a result of which, he got electrocuted and received grievous injuries. The plaintiff/appellant was taken to hospital, where he underwent treatment. It was pleaded that the plaintiff has not fully recovered and that he has suffered disability. It has also been averred that the plaintiff/appellant is now unable to perform the job of a labourer and agriculturist, which has resulted into loss of his income. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the accident took place due to negligence of the defendants/respondents as they had not taken care to maintain the electricity wires. 4. The defendants/respondents filed the written statement, in which it was contended that there was no negligence on part of the staff of the defendant-department in maintaining the conductors. It was submitted that the accident took place due to sudden bursting of insulator due to which 11KV conductor fell on LT line that was passing nearby, as a result of which the service line broke down. It was submitted that the accident took place due to sudden bursting of insulator due to which 11KV conductor fell on LT line that was passing nearby, as a result of which the service line broke down. According to the defendants/respondents, there was no question of negligence on the part of the field staff of defendant-department. It was pleaded that the plaintiff received injuries due to his own negligence as he was pulling the service line. 5. Vide order dated 05.08.2014, the learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: “1. Whether on 27.05.2012, the plaintiff suffered serious burn injuries at Khanpur Figsoo leading to his permanent disablement because of the negligence of the defendants in proper maintenance of 11KV HT line which after getting snapped fell on the HT line, which in turn fell on the service line of the plaintiff’s brother’s house, where the plaintiff had gone on the day of occurrence as a result of which one wire fell upon the plaintiff causing electric burn injuries to him? OPP 2. Whether the alleged occurrence took place due to bursting of insulator and snapping of conductors at the place of occurrence which was beyond the control of the defendants? OPD 3. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 4. Relief.” 6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff besides examining himself as witness, also examined PWs Ghulam Rasool, Shameema Begum and Dr. Mohd Rafi as witnesses in support of his case, whereas the defendants examined DW Jalal Din as witness in support of their case. 7. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had received injuries due to electrocution and the incident had taken place due to negligence of the defendant- department. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned trial court assessed the compensation by taking the income of the plaintiff as Rs. 5000/- per month and his age as 44 years, applied multiplier of 14 and accordingly a sum of Rs. 1,68,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of loss of future earnings in favour of the plaintiff. Besides this, the plaintiff was held entitled to an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as medical expenses. 5000/- per month and his age as 44 years, applied multiplier of 14 and accordingly a sum of Rs. 1,68,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of loss of future earnings in favour of the plaintiff. Besides this, the plaintiff was held entitled to an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as medical expenses. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,18,000/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the plaintiff alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum. 8. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds that the learned trial court has, without any basis determined the income of the plaintiff as Rs. 5,000/- per month, although there was evidence on record to show that the plaintiff/appellant was working as a Mason and his daily income was Rs. 500/- It has also been contended that while calculating the loss of income, the learned trial court has not taken into account the fact that the appellant was rendered incapable of performing the job of Mason and as such, there was 100% loss to his earning capacity. It has been further contended that the learned trial court has not granted any compensation to the appellant under the heads, “pain and sufferings”, “extra nutrition”, “future medical expenses” and other allied expenses while passing the impugned judgment and decree. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the grounds of appeal, the impugned judgment/decree and the trial court record. 10. So far as the occurrence is concerned, the finding of the learned trial court on this issue is not in dispute, as the respondents/defendants have not challenged the same by filing any appeal or cross-appeal. The finding of the trial court that the defendants/respondents were responsible for the accident is also not under challenge. The only issue that is required to be determined is as regards the quantum of compensation. While determining the quantum of compensation, the following points are required to be decided: 1) Whether there is any evidence on record of the trial court to show that the appellant/plaintiff was earning more than Rs. 5000/- per month? 2) Whether the appellant/plaintiff has suffered total loss of earning capacity due to the accident? While determining the quantum of compensation, the following points are required to be decided: 1) Whether there is any evidence on record of the trial court to show that the appellant/plaintiff was earning more than Rs. 5000/- per month? 2) Whether the appellant/plaintiff has suffered total loss of earning capacity due to the accident? 3) Whether the trial court has not awarded the compensation in favour of the plaintiff/appellant under the heads, pain and sufferings, extra nutrition, future medical expenses and other allied heads and if so, whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to compensation under any of these heads? 11. So far as the first point is concerned, if we have a look at the trial court judgment, income of the plaintiff has been taken as Rs. 5000/- per month. It has been observed by the learned trial court that the plaintiff has no fixed income and on the basis of the guess work, his income has been taken as Rs. 5000/- per month. The plaintiff/appellant claims that he was a Mason and earning Rs. 500/- per day. Though the plaintiff has in his statement recorded before the trial court deposed that he was working as a Mason and that he was earning Rs. 500 to 600 per day, yet in the pleadings filed by the plaintiff, it has been stated that he is a labourer and agriculturist, which work he is unable to do after the accident. Again, in his statement recorded at the time of inquiry in respect of his indigency, the plaintiff has disclosed his occupation as labourer. Even in the statement recorded during trial of the case, the plaintiff has disclosed his occupation as agriculturist. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that he was working as a Mason is contradicted by his own statements. The trial court record further shows that during the inquiry in respect to his indigency, the plaintiff has produced on record a copy of the ration card, which shows that he belongs to below poverty line, having monthly income of Rs. 1000/-. 12. From the above admission on the part of the plaintiffs, it cannot be stated that he was working as a Mason and earning Rs. 500/- per day as has been claimed by him. The learned trial court has rightly observed that the plaintiff has no fixed income. His income has accordingly been taken as Rs. 5000/- per annum. 1000/-. 12. From the above admission on the part of the plaintiffs, it cannot be stated that he was working as a Mason and earning Rs. 500/- per day as has been claimed by him. The learned trial court has rightly observed that the plaintiff has no fixed income. His income has accordingly been taken as Rs. 5000/- per annum. Even this income of the plaintiff is not proved from the evidence on record. However, this finding of the learned trial court is not under challenge from the side of the respondents/defendants. Thus, there is no ground to interfere in the finding of the trial court as regards assessment of monthly income of the plaintiff. The point No. 1 is decided accordingly. 13. That takes us to the question as to what was the loss to the earning capacity of the appellant due to the accident. The trial court has assessed the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 20%. As per the disability certificate ExT-MR, the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25%. PW Dr. Mohd Rafi, who has issued the said disability certificate has, in his cross-examination stated that the extent of disability of the appellant will not increase. He has further stated that the percentage of disability stated in the disability certificate is with regard to the involved limb i.e. left upper limb. He has also stated that appellant cannot perform heavy manual work and cannot lift heavy weight. 14. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the appellant has suffered disability to his left upper limb, which is not the normal dominant limb of a person. The percentage of the disability shown in the disability certificate is not qua the whole body of the plaintiff/appellant, but it is pertaining to a particular limb. It is true that the appellant cannot perform heavy manual work, which requires use of both upper limbs but he can certainly perform those jobs, which require use of only one upper limb. In fact the plaintiff has, in his cross-examination admitted that even at present he is earning Rs. 100/150 per day, meaning thereby that the plaintiff has not suffered total loss of earning capacity as has been claimed by him. In fact the plaintiff has, in his cross-examination admitted that even at present he is earning Rs. 100/150 per day, meaning thereby that the plaintiff has not suffered total loss of earning capacity as has been claimed by him. Therefore, there is nothing perverse in the finding of the learned trial court whereby loss of earning capacity of the plaintiff/appellant has been taken as 20%. Having regard to the nature of disability suffered by the plaintiff, contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has suffered 100% loss of earning capacity, cannot be accepted. 15. That takes us to the third point which relates to the heads under which the learned trial court has not awarded compensation to the plaintiff/appellant. It is true that the appellant has not been awarded compensation on account of pain and sufferings, extra nutrition, future medical expenses and other allied heads. The question arises as to whether there is any evidence on record to support the claim of the plaintiff in this regard. 16. A perusal of evidence on record shows that neither plaintiff nor any of his witnesses has stated that he has incurred any expenses on extra nutrition or for any other purpose. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Supreme Court and this Court in various pronouncements have clearly held that the principles applicable to MACT cases are to be applied to the cases relating to compensation on account electrocution and as such, on basis of guess work, compensation under the aforesaid heads is required to awarded in favour of the appellant. 17. It is true that the guidelines for assessment of compensation in MACT cases relating to injuries sustained by the victims or fatal accidents have to be applied while assessing compensation in a case relating to electrocution but there is a fundamental difference between the two kinds of proceedings. In MACT cases, the provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable, whereas in civil suits for recovery of compensation, the evidence has to be appreciated strictly in accordance with provisions of the Evidence Act and no guess work is permissible. In MACT cases, the provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable, whereas in civil suits for recovery of compensation, the evidence has to be appreciated strictly in accordance with provisions of the Evidence Act and no guess work is permissible. Neither the appellant/plaintiff nor his witnesses have deposed anything as regards incurring of expenses on extra nutrition or for any other allied purpose, except the medical expenses, therefore, no fault can be found in the judgment of the trial court in not awarding expenses on account of extra nutrition and other allied expenses. 18. However, a perusal of the evidence led before the learned trial court would show that due to the accident, the plaintiff has undergone pain and suffering. The plaintiff in his statement has stated that after the accident, he went unconscious and due to the accident his left shoulder suffered fracture and his right hand suffered burn injuries. PW Dr. Mohd Rafi has corroborated this statement and stated that due to the electrocution, appellant/plaintiff suffered burns on back, bilateral hands and fracture to his left clavicle. Thus, there is enough evidence on record to show that the appellant has suffered pain and agony as a result of electrocution. Despite this evidence on record, the learned trial court has not awarded any compensation in favour of the plaintiff/appellant on account of pain and suffering, thereby committing a grave illegality. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant/plaintiff and the period during which he has undergone treatment, he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for having undergone pain and sufferings due to electrocution. 19. There is also evidence on record to show that due to disability incurred by the appellant/plaintiff on account of electrocution, he has suffered loss of amenities of life. According to the plaintiff, his left shoulder has been rendered disabled. PW Dr. Mohd Rafi has stated that the appellant cannot perform the work of a labourer or weight lifting with his affected limb and if he does so, he will experience pain. He has further stated that appellate cannot perform his work as he used to perform before the injuries and cannot perform heavy manual work. Therefore, there is clear evidence on record to show that the appellant has suffered loss of amenities of life. The compensation under this head is, therefore, assessed at Rs. 25,000/-. 20. He has further stated that appellate cannot perform his work as he used to perform before the injuries and cannot perform heavy manual work. Therefore, there is clear evidence on record to show that the appellant has suffered loss of amenities of life. The compensation under this head is, therefore, assessed at Rs. 25,000/-. 20. There is also evidence on record to show that the plaintiff would need lifelong treatment. PW Dr. Mohd Rafi has stated that the plaintiff has to remain under treatment lifelong. In the face of this evidence, it was incumbent upon the trial court to award compensation in favour of the plaintiff to take care of his expenses of future treatment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- deserves to be awarded as future treatment charges in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. 21. In view of what has been discussed herein before, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to additional compensation in the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac, out of which only an amount of Rs. 75,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum, as interest cannot be awarded on future treatment expenses. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is modified by enhancing the total compensation to Rs. 3,18,000/-. The appellant shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of Rs. 75,000/- @ 6% from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 23. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court.