Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 28-2-2023, whereby Respondents 2 to 10 were held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.10,37,680 from Appellants 1 and 2, the Division Bench of Rajani Dubey* and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ., stated that from overall evidence on record, it could be observed that the appellants had failed to prove any negligence on the part of the deceased or the respondents which led to the unfortunate death of Respondent 1’s wife. The Trial Court after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record gave finding the respondent’s favour.
The Court noted that looking at the deceased’s age, that was thirty-five years, the number of dependents, the Trial Court applied the multiplier of 16 and assessed total loss of dependency at Rs. 9,67,680 and awarded Rs.70,000 towards mental agony and suffering, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the Court observed that the Trial Court had awarded the respondents, a total compensation of Rs.10,37,680/-. The Court stated that the quantum of compensation appeared to be just and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and dismissed the present appeal.
Background
Respondent 1 was the deceased’s husband and Respondent 2-9 were their children. As per the respondents, on 13-12-2017, the deceased, while having a bath at her home, came in contact with electric current of the bore pump and died due to electrocution. After information from Respondent 1, regarding the death of the deceased, an enquiry was conducted. From the post-mortem report and the police enquiry report, it was clear that she died due to electrocution.
The respondents further averred that the deceased was a labour by profession, earning Rs.200/- per day i.e. Rs.6000/- per month. Due to her untimely death, the respondents had suffered financially and mentally. Hence, they sought a total compensation of Rs.11 lacs under various heads with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost of litigation from Appellants 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
However, the appellants stated that on enquiry, it was found that after taking bath when the deceased went to switch off the starter of water pump, which was fixed on the wall of bathroom she suffered electric shock and died. It was found that the starter was fixed at a place having excessive dampness and there was no earthing connection with the starter. There was also no earthing in the internal wiring of the home. The appellants contended that since, the incident occurred due to fault in the internal electric wiring of the home and negligence on the part of the deceased, the respondents were not entitled for any compensation from them.
The Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record decided all the issues in favour of the respondents and consequently decreed the suit in part by the impugned judgment dated 28-2-2023. Hence, the appellants filed the present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that from overall evidence on record, it could be observed that the appellants had failed to prove any negligence on the part of the deceased or the respondents which led to the unfortunate death of Respondent 1’s wife. The Trial Court after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record gave finding the respondent’s favour. The Court relied on M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, and stated that as per the admitted facts in this case and the overall evidence on record, there was no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court in holding that the appellants were liable for paying compensation to the respondents.
Further, regarding the quantum of compensation, the Court observed that the Trial Court had considered the fact that though the respondents have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as a labour. However, no documentary evidence to this effect had been adduced, So, the deceased’s notional income was assessed as Rs.4,500/- per month.
The Court noted that looking at the deceased’s age, that was thirty-five years, the number of dependents, and keeping in mind the principle laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, , the Trial Court applied the multiplier of 16, and assessed total loss of dependency at Rs. 9,67,680 and awarded Rs.70,000 towards mental agony and suffering, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the Court observed that the Trial Court had awarded the respondents, a total compensation of Rs.10,37,680/-.
The Court stated that considering the nature of job of the deceased, her age, the number of dependents and the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the amount awarded by the Trial Court could not be termed as excessive or exorbitant, rather it appeared to be a just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the Court stated that the impugned judgment did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court.
[Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidhyut Vitaran Company v. State of Chhattisgarh, FA No. 85 of 2023, decided on 20-11-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Rajani Dubey
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Raja Sharma, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer; B.L. Sahu, Advocate.
The post appeared first on .