AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard finally.
Instant appeal & cross objection are directed against the
order dt.04.11.2015 passed by the District & Sessions Judge,
Alwar in Original Civil Suit No. 409/2012.
The brief facts noticed are that on 07.08.2011 when Jeet
Ram resident of Village Joga Bad Bhanot, Tehsil Mundawar, District
Alwar (Raj.) was working in his agricultural field under his
Khatedari, at that time suddenly an electric wire of 11000 KV
passing through his agricultural land fell down and Shri Jeet Ram
came in close contact with the electric wire in which current was
flowing, he died on the spot which was unnatural death and left
behind wife and two minor sons. The Mrig report bearing U.D.
No.19/11 u/Sec. 174 of the Act dt. 07.08.2011 was prepared on
the complaint lodged by Bhoop Singh who is elder brother of the
deceased Jeet Ram. In the postmortem report, it was opined that
the deceased Shri Jeet Ram died on account of electrocution. It
was claimed that the deceased died at a young age being 40 years
only and was hale & hearty & he had his own share of Khatedari
land being three Bigha and apart from earning by way of
agricultural work, he was also doing other works, selling milk from
which he used to earn about Rs.15,000/- per month and it was
claimed that it was an unnatural death caused on account of
electrocution which was due to negligence on the part of the
JVVNL, appellants herein and as a result of which wife became
widow at a young age living two minor sons and lost every thing,
who would have otherwise enjoyed the company of the deceased
for years together.
A claim of Rs.50,20,000/- was made under the Fatal Accident
Act along with interest. However, the Trial Court considering the
three issues including the issue of relief and after taking note of
the evidence placed on record of the witnesses of both the sides,
was satisfied that the deceased Shri Jeet Ram died on account of
negligence on the part of the appellant herein due to which the
deceased came in close contact with the electric wire in which
current was flowing which fell down and taking note of the overall
evidence and the facts brought on record, held that the claimants
are entitled to an amount of Rs.8,20,000/-.
While the appeal has been preferred on behalf of the
appellants assailing the findings of the Trial Court in granting
compensation to the respondents-claimants, a cross objection has
also been filed on behalf of the claimants inter-alia claiming that
the amount allowed by the Trial Court towards compensation of
Rs.8,20,000/- is too meager and certain salient facts have been
ignored and needs consideration by this Court.
On the request of the parties, the appeal as well as the cross
objection were heard together and finally.
Counsel for the appellant contended that the material
available on record, clearly proves that the deceased died on
account of his own fault and the claim of the respondent is that
some big bird (vulture/eagle) might have collided with the
electrical line and on account of which, fault developed and earth
wire came in close contact with the high voltage electric line.
Counsel stated that the facts brought on record clearly proves that
the wires were found in order & intact and once the wires were
found intact, the story built up by the claimants appears to be
fake. Counsel also contended that alternatively it is on account of
natural calamities, there being no fault and the claim is
inadmissible and the deceased ought to have been more vigilant
and question of negligence of the appellant does not arise. Thus,
contended that very evidence produced by the respondent clearly
demonstrate that there was no fault and negligence of the
appellant and the Trial Court erred in holding negligence of the
appellant in granting the said amount towards compensation.
Counsel relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Smt. Neeta w/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. Etc. Vs. The Div.
Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur decided on 13.01.2015.
Per-contra, ld. counsel for the respondent contended that it
is a clear cut case of negligence of the officials of the appellant
and had the wire been correctly placed and it being a strong wire
merely because some big bird (vulture/eagle) might have collided
with the electrical line, it could not have been broken and fell
down and the claim being just and proper, had rightly been
considered by the Trial Court. Counsel contended that even the
witnesses of the appellant stated that they were not present on
the spot when the alleged incident took place. Counsel also
contended that the Mrig report and Postmortem report clearly
proves and indicate that the deceased Shri Jeet Ram died on
account of electrocution of electric wire in which current was
flowing and the order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper
and is not required to be interfered with and thus, supported the
order of the Trial Court in this regard. Counsel relied upon
judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of K. Muthu Vs.
The Secretary & Ors. decided on 02.12.2016.
Insofar as the cross objection is concerned, counsel for the
claimants stated that the ample evidence has been placed on
record regarding income/earning capacity of the deceased and
even details of agricultural field possessed by the deceased was
also brought on record which is not denied by the appellants.
Counsel also contended that the deceased was hale & hearty and
at the young age of 40 years died on account of this incident. Both
the minor children became orphan and the wife became widow on
account of death of deceased Shri Jeet Ram who was looking after
the family & was the only bread earner and at least proper
compensation ought to have been allowed. Counsel for the
claimants contended that the income computed by the Trial Court
is on very lower side and is required to be enhanced substantially
as the appellant was working in the agricultural filed and was also
selling milk and by this way was earning about Rs.15,000/- per
month and the amount of compensation claimed cannot be said to
be on the higher side. Counsel further contended that even in a
case of an agriculturist and person selling milk, future prospect is
required to be considered, the Apex Court has in catena of
judgments held that even in the case of barber or low paid worker,
future prospect is required to be considered & contended that in
the instant case, the future prospect @30% is required to be
allowed in addition to the amount awarded by the Trial Court
towards compensation. Counsel also contended that other amount
allowed under other heads like Love & Affection and Consortium at
Rs.1,00,000/- is virtually nothing as the wife of the deceased at a
young age became widow and it needs to be enhanced suitably.
Per-contra, ld. counsel for the appellant on the cross
objection contended that the amount allowed is fair and
reasonable and no evidence was placed before the Trial Court
except merely stating that the deceased had three Bigha of
agricultural land but what was the actual produce, nothing was
placed on record in support of the said claim. Counsel also
contended that the Trial Court had considered Rs.200/- per day as
earning of the deceased which is fair and reasonable and even the
skilled labour as in the year 2011 as per the Minimum Wages Act
in Rajasthan it was Rs.150/- per day and even the same was not
proved that the deceased was skilled labour in any manner.
Counsel also contended that insofar as the amount of
compensation is concerned, no interference is needed by this
Court.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the
material available on record including the record of the Trial Court
and the photograph annexed thereto.
On perusal of the record, it transpires and that it reveals that
ample evidence came on record that the deceased was working in
the agricultural field and the electric wire fell down and the
statement of one Mr. Usuf Khan S/o Sheer Mohd. who is JEN,
admitted that on the spot the dead eagle was lying on the
agricultural land of the deceased and the electrical line in which
the current was flowing was also lying broken on the agricultural
field of the deceased and the photographs of the same also
depicts that the electric wire in which current was flowing fell on
the body of the deceased. The Mrig and Postmortem reports
prepared by the Medical Officer at Community Health Centre,
Mundawar does prove the cause of death to be on account of
"Electric Shock". There is ample evidence on record that the
deceased died on account of electric wire having fallen down by
which the deceased while working in his agricultural land came in
close contact with the electric wire in which current was flowing
and died an unnatural death. In my view, the finding reached by
the Trial Court that the deceased died on account of negligence
and fault of the appellant, is proved beyond doubt, thus, the said
finding is upheld.
It is also an admitted fact that no evidence has been brought
on record by the claimants about income/earning capacity of the
deceased though he may be of a young age of 40 years, was also
hale & hearty, evidence has been placed on record that the
deceased had three Bigha of agricultural land and income can be
assumed of a person owing three Bighas of agricultural land and in
addition to the assumption by the Trial Court about Rs.200 per day
after deducting expenses of electricity and others, in my view, the
total income of the deceased can be taken to be Rs.8,000/- per
month and insofar as the future prospect is concerned, taking into
consideration the consistent judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court
in the case of Rajesh and ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors.
Reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Santosh Devi Vs. National
Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. Reported in (2012) 6 SCC
421 where it has been held that even in the case of a low paid
emploee or workers or labour or even barber or a person running
thela, future prospect is required to be considered and in my view
taking into consideration the age of the deceased to be about 40
years at the time of death, future prospect @ 30% appears to be
allowable. Thus, on Rs.8,000/- after deduction of 1/3rd, 30% will
be enhanced.
The other amount allowed at Rs.1,00,000/- on account of
Love and Affection & Consortium is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-
which would seen to be reasonable. Let the amount now allowable
in the light of this judgment be computed and paid in accordance
with the directions keeping the money invested in the Banks.
In the light of the above, the claim is re-computed
hereunder:-
A Income Rs.8,000/-
B Future Prospects 30% Rs.2,400/-
A+B = Rs.10,400/-
C Less Deduction for living expenses 1/3th of total income i.e. Rs.3,466/-
D Compensation after multiplier
of 15 is applied (6,934X12X15)= Rs.12,48,120/-
E Loss of consortium &
Love & Affection (Two Children) Rs.1,50,000/-
Total Of D+E Rs.13,98,120/-
Less amount awarded by Trial Court Rs.8,20,000/-
Balance Payable Rs.5,78,120/-
Say Rs.5,78,000/-
Accordingly, total amount of Rs.5,78,000/- as aforesaid, is
additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal .
The Trial Court shall however keep certain proportion
deposited in Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) in nearest Post Office
to safeguard interest of minor and also ensure that the respondent
claimants (Mother-Wife) gets interest on quarterly rests for
maintaining the family.
With these directions/observations, the present appeal
stands dismissed and the cross objection is partly allowed.