Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 728 (RAJ)

Puri @ Puro devi W/o Shrawan Singh v. Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited

2023-03-28

REKHA BORANA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 06.07.2017 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge No.2, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Original Suit No.209/2015(43/2014) whereby the suit of the plaintiffs-claimants for compensation under the Indian Fatal Accident Act, 1855 (for short 'the Act') has been partly decreed and an amount of Rs.11,57,352/-has been awarded as compensation. Hence, the same have been heard and are being decided together. 2. S.B. Civil First Appeal No.430/2017 has been preferred by the plaintiffs-claimants for enhancement of the compensation whereas S.B. Civil First Appeal No.327/2017 has been preferred by the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation) with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree. 3. The facts of the case are that a suit was preferred by the plaintiffs with the submission that on 13.07.2014, Shrawan Singh, husband of plaintiff no.1-Puri @ Purodevi, while trying to stop the cattle fight, came into contact with the loose wires of the transformer (DP) and got electrocuted. Because of the said electrocution, he sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the said injuries. An FIR qua the said incident was registered and after investigation, it was concluded that Shrawan Singh died due to electrocution. The Post Mortem Report also suggested death of the deceased by shock from electrocution. It was therefore averred that the respondent Corporation, which was liable and duty bound to maintain the electric wires, failed to perform its duties and because of the negligence of the Corporation in maintaining the electric appliances/instruments, the husband of the plaintiff no.1 got electrocuted and expired. Therefore, the Corporation, in its strict liability, is liable to compensate the plaintiffs. 4. The case of the defendants was that the averments as made by the plaintiffs are totally false as the death of the deceased did not occur in the manner and fashion as alleged. It has been submitted that the deceased, who was an electrician, while operating the electric wires in his own house, got electrocuted. No loose wires as averred were there on the site as in a DP, no wires even exist and therefore, there can be no question of there being any loose wires as averred by the plaintiffs. It has been submitted that the deceased, who was an electrician, while operating the electric wires in his own house, got electrocuted. No loose wires as averred were there on the site as in a DP, no wires even exist and therefore, there can be no question of there being any loose wires as averred by the plaintiffs. It has further been submitted that despite the GSS of the Corporation being at a distance of just 1 km from the house of the plaintiffs, no information of the incident was given to them which was a mandate in terms of the Electricity Act. Therefore, in absence of compliance of provisions of law, the Corporation cannot be held liable for any compensation. 5. Learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings framed four issues as under : ¼1½ vk;k oknhx.k foj/kflag dh ¼2½ vk;k fnukad 13-07-2014 dks gqbZ nq?kZVuk izfroknhx.k ds foHkkx dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k gqbZ \ ¼3½ vk;k fd fnukad 13-07-2014 dks gqbZ nq?kZVuk e`rd Jo.kflag dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k gqbZ ftlesa izfroknhx.k foHkkx dk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha gS \ ¼4½ vuqrks"k \** 6. Plaintiff no.1 examined herself along with another witness PW2, Babu Singh and got exhibited six documents. The defendants examined one witness Kailash Choudhary (DW-1), Assistant Engineer, JVVNL, District Barmer. 7. While deciding issue No.1, learned trial court specifically reached to a conclusion that the deceased died because of the electrocution from the loose wires of the DP and that, it was only because of the negligence of the Corporation that the incident occurred and Shrawan Singh expired. Therefore, the trial court proceeded on to award an amount of Rs.11,57,352/-as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit/claim petition. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial court has erred in computing the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages whereas he was a skilled carpenter and was earning Rs.50,000/-per month. Learned counsel submitted that the income of the deceased ought to have been computed to be Rs.50,000/-per month, which was clearly established on record. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-to the wife qua the loss of consortium is too meager and hence the same deserves to be enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that the income of the deceased ought to have been computed to be Rs.50,000/-per month, which was clearly established on record. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-to the wife qua the loss of consortium is too meager and hence the same deserves to be enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-. Further, the amount qua love and affection granted to the children to the tune of Rs.25,000/-has also been prayed to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-for each child. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the matters of State Through Chairman JVVNL & Ors. Vs. Guddi Bai & Ors.; S.B. Civil First Appeal No.393/2015 (decided on 27.07.2022), Girdhari Meena and Ors. Vs. JVVNL Through Chairman & Ors.; S.B. Civil First Appeal No.503/2018 (decided on 12.07.2022), JVVNL Vs. Smt. Lada Devi and Ors.; S.B. Civil First Appeal No.270/2003 (decided on 27.07.2022) and the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the matter of Munna Lal Jain & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.4497 of 2015 (decided on 15.05.2015) and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.; AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Corporation, while denying the allegation of negligence, submitted that no incident as averred happened on the said date and therefore, the Award as passed in favour of the plaintiffs, deserves to be set aside. Counsel further raised challenge to the quantum of compensation as awarded firstly on the ground that the income of the deceased as computed was not proved on record; secondly, a wrong multiplier had been applied while calculating the compensation qua the future prospects of the deceased and thirdly, the principles as applied in the claim cases pertaining to the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be applied to the cases under the Fatal Accidents Act. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 11. A perusal of the record shows that apart from pleadings, no oral or documentary evidence has been placed on record by the Corporation to prove that the wires as averred by the plaintiffs were not hanging at the place of incident. No survey/factual report was exhibited by the Corporation. Rather, it has been the admitted case of the defendant witness that no survey qua the said incident was made by the Corporation. No survey/factual report was exhibited by the Corporation. Rather, it has been the admitted case of the defendant witness that no survey qua the said incident was made by the Corporation. On the other hand, the statements of the plaintiff witnesses specifically proved the factum of the wires of the DP being loose and hanging and touching the earth. PW2, Babu Singh has specifically averred that wires were hanging from the DP and there was a current flowing in the said wires which were touching the ground. Therefore, because of the flowing current, palm of the deceased stuck to the said wires and he got electrocuted. In view of above submissions, learned trial court reached to the specific conclusion that the Corporation was negligent due to which Shrawan Singh expired. The said finding, in the opinion of this Court, is perfectly in consonance with the evidence available on record and the law applicable. Once it is established that death has been occurred due to electrocution, the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability comes in play. The defendant would be strictly and vicariously liable to compensate persons affected by accidents without any fault on their part and due to negligence on the part of defendants. This view finds support from provisions of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and judgments of the Apex Court in case of Parvati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi; 2003 (3) SCC 754 and M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar; AIR 2000 SC 551 . Therefore, the finding as reached by the learned trial court does not deserve any interference. The same is therefore, affirmed. 12. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned trial court has computed the income of the deceased as Rs.166/-per day/Rs.4316/-per month considering him to be an unskilled labour in terms of proposition of law as laid down in the case of ICICI Bank Vs. Gautam 2014 (3) DNJ Raj 929 and in terms of the circular issued by the State Government providing for the minimum wages for the skilled/unskilled labourers at the relevant point of time. 13. In the opinion of this Court, the computation of the income of the deceased by the trial court considering him to be an unskilled labour cannot be affirmed as it has been clearly established on record by the claimants that the deceased was a carpenter. 13. In the opinion of this Court, the computation of the income of the deceased by the trial court considering him to be an unskilled labour cannot be affirmed as it has been clearly established on record by the claimants that the deceased was a carpenter. In terms of the circular of the State Government governing the labourers in the year 2014, a carpenter/tailor has been categorised to be a skilled labour. Therefore, the wages of a skilled labour ought to have been considered by the trial court. As per the government notification, the wages for a skilled labour was Rs.186/-per day/Rs.4,836/-per month. Therefore, the computation of the compensation deserves to be made while considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,836/-per month. So far as the consideration of the rise in income qua future prospects @40% and application of a multiplier of 16 by the trial court is concerned, the same cannot be affirmed in view of the principles as laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.; AIR 2009 SC 3104 . The ground as raised by learned counsel for the Corporation to that extent holds good and is accepted. 14. In view of the above analysis, if the complete compensation is re-computed considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,836/-and thereafter considering the rise in income @40% qua the future prospects; applying a multiplier of 15 in terms of the ratio laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra); further deducting 1/4th of the income as self expenditure; adding the amount qua consortium @ Rs.40,000/-per dependent; adding Rs.15,000/-qua the loss of estate and Rs.25,000/-qua funeral expenses, total sum comes out to be Rs.11,54,040/-. For future prospects : Income per month Rs.4836 Future prospects (40% of income) Rs.1934 Total Rs.6770 Deduction (4 dependents)- Rs.1692 Income per month Rs.5078 Income per annum Rs.60,936 Compensation due to death (multiplier of 15) Rs.9,14,040 Loss of consortium Funeral expenses Rs.25,000 Loss of estate Rs.15,000 Total Rs.11,54,040/- 15. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the amount of Rs.11,57,352/-has already been awarded by the trial court but while considering rise in the income qua future prospects @50% and applying a multiplier of 16 which, in terms of principles as laid down in the cases of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) could not have been applied. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the amount of Rs.11,57,352/-has already been awarded by the trial court but while considering rise in the income qua future prospects @50% and applying a multiplier of 16 which, in terms of principles as laid down in the cases of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) could not have been applied. The future prospects applicable in the present matter would be 40% only and the multiplier to be adopted would be of 15 only as the age of the deceased was 38 years at the time of accident. Therefore, as the amount computed by this Court comes out to Rs.11,54,040/-whereas that awarded by the trial court was Rs.11,57,352/-, which is almost equal to the amount computed by this Court, in the interest of justice, the amount as awarded by the trial court is not interfered with. 16. In view of above analysis, the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2017 as passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Barmer is hereby affirmed. The appeals as preferred by the claimants as well as by the respondent-Corporation are hereby dismissed. 17. The stay petition and all pending applications also stand disposed of.