Gujarat High Court
Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs Jetha Thawar Harijan Father Of Khimji ... on 19 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4659 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. & ANR.
Versus
JETHA THAWAR HARIJAN FATHER OF KHIMJI HARIJAN & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JEET J BHATT(6154) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 19/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd. against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh (hereinafter be referred to as the "trial Court") in Special Civil Suit No. 62 of 2006, whereby the trial Court has partly allowed the said suit filed by the plaintiff and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,42,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% in favour of present respondents.
Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that on 31.10.2004, the son of the present respondents, namely Khimji Jetha Harijan, was returning from Nara Dam after taking a bath. Around 14:15 hrs, while passing near the Dam, he reached the vicinity of an electrical pole. At that time, he received a severe electric shock from the wires of the said pole, sustaining serious injuries. During the course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 02.11.2004 at G.K. Hospital, Bhuj.
2.1 Hence, the original plaintiffs-father and mother of the deceased had filed Special Civil Suit No. 62 of 2006 for damages, before the trial Court, Bhuj at Kachchh.
2.2 The original defendants were appeared through advocates and have submitted their written statement at Exh.18 objecting the suit of the plaintiffs. The trial Court framed issues in paragraph No.3 at Exh.19 which read as under:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover from the defendants the amount stated in paragraph 6 of the plaint along with interest at the rate of 24% thereon?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the reliefs as prayed for in the plaint?
3. Whether the defendants prove that, as stated in paragraph 4 of the reply, the plaintiff's suit is barred by jurisdiction?
4. Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation?
Whether the plaintiff's suit is liable to be rejected for Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined non-payment of proper court fees?
5.What order and decree?
2.3 After considering the facts of the case, the trial Court answered the issues in paragraph No.4 of the judgment and decree. The trial Court, after considering the oral as well documentary evidence, has partly allowed the suit and awarded the compensation as aforesaid.
2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants have preferred present appeal.
3. Heard Mr.Jeet J Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants. Though served, respondents have chosen not to appear before this Court.
4. Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel would submit that the trial Court has passed the judgment and decree against the provisions of law and evidence on record and committed an error of facts and law. He would submit that the trial Court has not considered the fact that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased and the onus of establishing the negligence is upon the plaintiffs. He would submit that trial Court has taken into consideration the income of deceased at Rs.3000/- per month which is on higher side. He would submit that the trial Court has awarded compensation contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the quantum of compensation is much higher than what actually could have been awarded. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree deserves Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined to be quashed and set aside.
4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted the trial court has materially erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and the findings recorded are contrary to the pleadings, evidence on record, and settled principles of law. He has also submitted that the plaintiffs before the trial Court have failed to discharge their burden of proof under the Evidence Act. He has submitted that the entire foundation of the suit rests upon the allegation that deceased Shri Khimji Jetha Harijan sustained fatal electric shock due to negligence of the present appellants. However, no cogent, reliable, or corroborative evidence has been produced by the plaintiffs to establish the alleged occurrence of electrocution in the manner pleaded.
4.2 Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased himself had entered a pit near the transformer centre where wooden planks were kept for drying clothes and came into contact with the supporting angle clamp, due to which the incident occurred. He has submitted that the accident, if any, was solely due to the act of the deceased himself and not attributable to any fault or negligence of the appellants. He has submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the electric line and transformer in question were properly maintained and that periodical inspection, guarding, and safety measures were duly undertaken by the appellants. He has submitted that there was no defect in the electric supply system which could have caused the incident and, therefore, the finding of negligence is wholly perverse Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined and unsustainable.
4.3 Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the trial court has also overlooked the fact that the plaintiffs did not immediately inform the appellants about the alleged accident, which creates serious doubt about the authenticity of their case and suggests that the incident was falsely projected as electrocution from appellants' wires. He has submitted that the plaintiffs' claim of dependency and calculation of compensation is wholly exaggerated, speculative, and unsupported by material evidence.
4.4 Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the alleged monthly income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 4,500 without any documentary proof, and on that basis the trial court assumed future income of Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month, which is entirely conjectural. He has submitted that the court then proceeded to calculate compensation by taking Rs. 4,000/- as monthly contribution to the family, multiplying it by 12 months and by 20 years, and arrived at Rs. 9,60,000, further granting an overall sum of Rs. 10,00,000. He has submitted that this calculation is patently erroneous, since there is no evidence of stable income, no evidence of permanent employment, and no evidence to support the adoption of 20 years' multiplier or such high dependency ratio.
4.5 Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial court has also ignored that as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in absence of documentary proof of income, only minimum wages or Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined notional income can be considered, and deductions for personal expenses cannot be less than one-third and therefore the assumption that the deceased would have contributed three-fourths of his income is unsustainable. He has also submitted that the court has also erred in assuming life expectancy of 61 years for a 19-year-old without considering uncertainties of life, vagaries of employment, and lack of permanency in earnings. Thus, even on the question of quantum, the judgment is contrary to law and requires interference. He has submitted that the principle of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable in the present case, as the appellants have satisfactorily explained that due care and caution were taken in maintaining the lines and transformer. Learned counsel for the appellants urge before Court that present appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court may be quashed and set aside.
5. I have considered the facts of the case and relevant material produced on record. I have also gone through the record and proceedings vis a vis the impugned judgment and award passed by the trial Court.
6. It is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and others, (2002) 2 SCC 162 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 as under:-
"7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined injury or death of a human, being, who gets unknowingly trapped into if the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.
9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English Common Law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands V/s. Fletcher (1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330), Blackburn J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision : "The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined escape."
10. There are seven exceptions formulated by means of case law to the doctrine of strict liability. It is unnecessary to enumerate those exceptions baring one which is this. "Act of stranger i.e. if the escape was caused by the unforeceable act of a stranger, the rule does not apply."
11. The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many subsequent decisions in England. A recent decision in recognition of the said doctrine is rendered by the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. V/s. Eastern Counties Leather Plc. (1994 (1) All England Law Reports (HL) 53). The said principle gained approval in India, and decisions of the High Courts are a legion to that effect. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu V/s. Union of India (1990 (1) SCC 613) and a Division Bench in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. V/s. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987 (3) SCC
234) had followed with approval the principle in Rylands V/s. Fletcher. By referring to the above two decisions a two Judge Bench of this Court has reiterated the same principle in Kaushnuma Begum V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001 (2) SCC 9)"
7. It is also profitable to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, (2014) 15 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para - 16 as under:-
"16. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has awarded compensation keeping all these aspects of the matter and has applied the guiding principle of multiplier method after adverting to the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121. for the purpose of computation of just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant which method should not have been applied to the case on hand, particularly, having regard to the statutory negligence on the part of the respondents in not providing the safety measures to see that live electric wires should not fall on the roof of the building by strictly following the Rules to protect the lives of the public in the residential area. This Court in the case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha, (2014) 1 SCC 384, has deviated from following the Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined multiplier method to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant in a medical negligence case. The same principle will hold good in the case on hand too. The following case law is followed by this Court in the above referred case, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant:
68. ........ three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Indian Medical Assn. v. V.P. Shantha, wherein this Court has categorically disagreed on this specific point in another case wherein "medical negligence" was involved. In the said decision, it has been held at para 53 that to deny a legitimate claim or to restrict arbitrarily the size of an award would amount to substantial injustice to the claimant. *********
99. In Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. this Court at para 15 observed as under which got reiterated at SCC pp. 639- 40, para 13 of Ibrahim v. Raju:
"15. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2009) 13 SCC 422] this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below:
26. The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms.
27. The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another (sic situation) the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is, Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guesswork may be inevitable. That may be so.
XXX XXX XXX
46. In the Indian context several other factors should be taken into consideration including education of the dependants and the nature of job. In the wake of changed societal conditions and global scenario, future prospects may have to be taken into consideration not only having regard to the status of the employee, his educational qualification; his past performance but also other relevant factors, namely, the higher salaries and perks which are being offered by the private companies these days. In fact while determining the multiplicand this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben held that even dearness allowance and perks with regard thereto from which the family would have derived monthly benefit, must be taken into consideration.
47. One of the incidental issues which has also to be taken into consideration is inflation. Is the practice of taking inflation into consideration wholly incorrect- Unfortunately, unlike other developed countries, in India there has been no scientific study. It is expected that with the rising inflation the rate of interest would go up. In India it does not happen. It, therefore, may be a relevant factor which may be taken into consideration for determining the actual ground reality. No hard-and- fast rule, however, can be laid down therefor.' ********
101. .......................... he has also strongly placed reliance upon the observations made at para 170 in Malay Kumar Ganguly's case referred to supra wherein this Court has made observations as thus: (SCC p. 282) "170. Indisputably, grant of compensation involving an accident is within the realm of law of torts. It is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum. The said principle provides that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. (See Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co.)"
********** Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined 103.1. In Ningamma's case, this Court has observed at para 34 which reads thus: (SCC p. 721) "34. .......in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting 'just compensation' in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty-bound and entitled to award 'just compensation' irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not."
*********
112. The claimant has also placed reliance upon Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S.Dhananka's [(2009) 2 SCC 688] case in support of his submission that if a case is made out, then the Court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"88. We must emphasis that the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The 'adequate compensation' that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned."
Further in para 119, it is held ......this Court has rejected the use of multiplier system to calculate and award the quantum of compensation which must be just and reasonable. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereunder: (SCC para 92) "92. Mr Tandale, the learned counsel for the respondent has, further submitted that the proper method for determining compensation would be the multiplier method. We find absolutely no merit in this plea. The kind of damage that the complainant has suffered, the expenditure that he has incurred and is likely to incur in the future and the possibility that his [pic]rise in his chosen field would now be restricted, are matters which cannot be taken care of under the multiplier method." (emphasis supplied) Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined Further under paragraph No. 121, the relevant paragraph from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan read as under: (SCC pp. 295-96, paras 20) "20. The court cannot be totally oblivious to the realities. The Second Schedule while prescribing the multiplier, had maximum income of Rs 40,000 p.a. in mind, but it is considered to be a safe guide for applying the prescribed multiplier in cases of higher income also but in cases where the gap in income is so wide as in the present case income is 2,26,297 dollars, in such a situation, it cannot be said that some deviation in the multiplier would be impermissible. Therefore, a deviation from applying the multiplier as provided in the Second Schedule may have to be made in this case. Apart from factors indicated earlier the amount of multiplicand also becomes a factor to be taken into account which in this case comes to 2,26,297 dollars, that is to say, an amount of around Rs 68 lakhs per annum by converting it at the rate of Rs 30. By Indian standards it is certainly a high amount. Therefore, for the purposes of fair compensation, a lesser multiplier can be applied to a heavy amount of multiplicand. A deviation would be reasonably permissible in the figure of multiplier even according to the observations made in Susamma Thomas where a specific example was given about a person dying at the age of 45 leaving no heirs being a bachelor except his parents." (emphasis supplied) Further, in paragraph 177, it was held as under:-
"177. Under the heading of loss due to pain and suffering and loss of amenities of the wife of the claimant, Kemp and Kemp write as under:
"The award to a plaintiff of damages under the head "pain and suffering" depends as Lord Scarman said in Lim Poh Choo v. Camden and Islington Area health Authority, "upon the claimant's personal awareness of pain, her capacity of suffering. Accordingly, no award is appropriate if and in so far as the claimant has not suffered and is not likely to suffer pain, and has not endured and is not likely to endure suffering, for example, because he was rendered immediately and permanently unconscious in the accident. By contrast, an award of damages in respect of loss of amenities is appropriate whenever there is in fact such a loss regardless of the claimant's awareness of the loss."
XXX XXX XXX Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined 'Even though the claimant may die from his injuries shortly after the accident, the evidence may justify an award under this head. Shock should also be taken account of as an ingredient of pain and suffering and the claimant's particular circumstances may well be highly relevant to the extent of her suffering. ..........' By considering the nature of amenities lost and the injury and pain in the particular case, the court must assess the effect upon the particular claimant. In deciding the appropriate award of damages, an important consideration show long will he be deprived of those amenities and how long the pain and suffering has been and will be endured. If it is for the rest of his life the court will need to take into account in assessing damages the claimant's age and his expectation in life......." (emphasis supplied)
8. Having considered the rival submissions and material on record, it clearly emerges that the deceased, a young boy of 19 years, lost his life due to electrocution near the electric pole/transformer owned and maintained by the appellant Company. The trial Court, after considering oral and documentary evidence, rightly recorded a finding of negligence against the appellants. The defence sought to be raised that the deceased himself entered into the transformer pit or that the accident occurred due to his own fault has no corroborative evidence and cannot dislodge the clear liability of the appellant Company. In fact, the appellants have not produced any cogent evidence to establish contributory negligence of the deceased. Even this Court has already decided a similar issue in First Appeal No.470 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 17.06.2025, wherein it was held that once the trial Court records a finding on negligence and the electricity company has not been able to demonstrate any cogent material to dislodge such finding, the plea of absence Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined of negligence is not tenable.
9. It is a settled principle that when death or injury occurs by electrocution through live wires or installations belonging to the Electricity Board/Company, the principle of strict liability applies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari (2002) 2 SCC 162 has categorically held that so long as transmission of electricity poses foreseeable risk of danger to human life, the supplier bears primary liability to compensate, irrespective of negligence. Thus, once it is proved that the deceased came into contact with the electric installation of the appellant Company and sustained fatal shock, the burden shifts upon the appellants to establish that the accident was outside their control or due to an excepted cause. The appellants have failed to discharge such burden.
10. Even assuming that safety measures were claimed to be taken, the settled doctrine of strict liability fastens responsibility upon the appellants. The contention that the deceased may have entered the transformer pit or touched the supporting clamp is of no avail. The appellants, being entrusted with supply of such hazardous commodity, were bound to ensure that no live current or exposed part was accessible to members of the public. Their failure in doing so has directly resulted in the loss of precious life, and therefore liability cannot be avoided.
11. As regards quantum of compensation, the trial Court has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month in absence of documentary proof. Even if such income Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined is treated as notional, the same is just and proper keeping in view the age of the deceased and prevailing minimum wages at the relevant time. The contention that the trial Court erred in assuming higher income or multiplier is misconceived. The trial Court has applied reasonable principles and awarded compensation of Rs.4,42,000/- with 9% interest, which cannot be said to be excessive or contrary to law. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raman (supra) has emphasized that in cases of electrocution, computation of "just and reasonable compensation" should not be strictly fettered by technicalities of multiplier method, but must address the irreparable loss to the dependents.
12. In the present case, the deceased was only 19 years of age, with his entire life ahead of him. His parents - the claimants - have lost their only son in a most unfortunate and untimely accident. The award of Rs.4,42,000/- with 9% interest is in consonance with the settled legal principles and cannot be termed either excessive or unjustified.
13. The contention raised by the appellants regarding contributory negligence, exaggerated income, or lack of notice to the Company, are without merit. These arguments are speculative, not supported by evidence, and contrary to the doctrine of strict liability governing such accidents. Once the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and applied the settled law, this Court sees no reason to interfere.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 24.07.2009 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-
Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4659/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined Kachchh in Special Civil Suit No.62 of 2006 is hereby confirmed.
15. Present appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:00:10 IST 2025