GOPIRAM vs THE AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.

[2026:RJ-JD:21664]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 35/2023
1. Gopiram S/o Late Ramuram, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Sonnagar, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagour.
2. Santu Devi D/o Late Ramuram, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Sonnagar, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagour.
3. Premi Devi D/o Late Ramuram, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Sonnagar, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagour.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its
President, Ajmer.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Nagour.
3. The Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Ajmer. (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gopi Ram (Petitioner Self)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Gehlot
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
Reportable
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 01/05/2026
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED 01/05/2026
FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART Full JUDGMENT
DATE Of PRONOUNCEMENT 11/05/2026
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:25:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/06/2026 at 12:24:41 AM)

(2 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JD:21664] [CFA-35/2023]
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of filing the instant first appeal under Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants-plaintiffs assail
the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2022 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge No.1, Nagaur in Civil
Regular Case No. 04/2018 (Gopi Ram & Ors. Vs. AVVNL &
Ors.), instituted under the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, whereby
the learned trial Court, despite recording findings regarding
occurrence of the fatal accident and involvement of
electricity line, has failed to make a just, fair and reasonable
assessment of compensation and has thereby occasioned
grave miscarriage of justice.
Facts
2. The case of the appellants, in substance, is that on
08.12.2017 at about 10–11 AM, a live electric wire belonging
to the respondents snapped due to lack of proper
maintenance and fell upon a hut situated in the vicinity,
resulting in a sudden fire. The deceased Ramuram, while
attempting to save household belongings from the burning
hut, came into contact with the live wire and suffered fatal
electrocution, leading to his untimely death. The incident was
reported, and post-mortem and other documentary evidence
substantiated that death occurred due to electric current.
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:25:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/06/2026 at 12:24:41 AM)

(3 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JD:21664] [CFA-35/2023]
3. The appellants, being legal heirs of the deceased, instituted
a claim under the Fatal Accident Act,1855 seeking
compensation on account of negligence on the part of the
respondent electricity authorities. The learned trial Court,
while accepting the occurrence of the incident and the death
due to electrocution, partly allowed the claim and held that
the plaintiffs are entitled to receive a sum of ₹1,25,000/- as
compensation from the defendants, along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e.
04.04.2018 till realization. It was further directed that all the
defendants shall be jointly and severally liable for payment
of the said compensation. However, the appellants contend
that the compensation so awarded is grossly inadequate and
not commensurate with the loss suffered Aggreived thereby,
the instant appeal is filed.
Observations
4. At the admission stage, this order is being passed with the
consent of both parties, as the present appeal pertains only
to enhancement of compensation and does not warrant
formal admission and prolonged hearing after several years.
Therefore, the matter is being finally decided at this stage
itself.
5. At the outset, this Court is constrained to observe that
though the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the
occurrence of the incident and the causal connection
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:25:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/06/2026 at 12:24:41 AM)

(4 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JD:21664] [CFA-35/2023]
between the snapped electric wire and the death of the
deceased, however, it has faltered in discharging its solemn
duty of awarding “just compensation”, which is the very soul
of adjudication under the Fatal Accident Act. The
assessment, as made, appears to be not only conservative
but also oblivious to the broader principles governing
compensation jurisprudence.
6. It is an undisputed and well-established principle of tortious
liability that where a public utility authority undertakes the
responsibility of maintaining inherently dangerous
infrastructure such as live electric lines, a higher degree of
care is expected. The doctrine of strict liability, if not
absolute liability, squarely comes into play. In the present
case, the material on record unequivocally establishes that
the electric wire had snapped and fallen, which itself is a res
ipsa loquitu r situation, speaking volumes about negligence.
7. The learned trial Court, despite recording findings that the
wire had indeed broken and caused fire, has failed to assign
due weight to the consequential devastation caused thereby.
This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in the present
case, not only was a human life extinguished, but a dwelling
house was also consumed by fire.
8. A dwelling house is not a mere physical structure; it is the
nucleus of human existence. Whether it be the palace of a
king or the humble hut of a poor person, both share a
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:25:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/06/2026 at 12:24:41 AM)

(5 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JD:21664] [CFA-35/2023]
common essence , they are meant for living, where a family
resides. The value of a home does not depend on whether it
is a palace or a hut. The intrinsic worth of a dwelling
transcends its material valuation. The learned trial Court has
erred in reducing this profound loss into a narrow pecuniary
assessment, thereby ignoring the emotional, social, and
existential deprivation suffered by the appellants.
9. The jurisprudence of compensation has evolved beyond rigid
formulas and now embraces a more humane and realistic
approach. Courts are expected to adopt a holistic and liberal
interpretation, ensuring that compensation is neither illusory
nor symbolic but truly restorative in nature. The
extinguishment of a dwelling house aggravates the
magnitude of loss manifold , it is not merely loss of shelter,
but loss of security, dignity, and continuity of life.
10.Further, the reasoning of the trial Court appears to have
been unduly influenced by technicalities while ignoring the
overarching mandate of doing substantial justice. Once
negligence is established, the consequences flowing
therefrom must be fully compensated. The respondents,
being custodians of a hazardous utility, cannot escape
liability by attributing contributory conduct to the deceased,
particularly when the deceased was acting in a bona fide
attempt to mitigate damage and save property.
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:25:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/06/2026 at 12:24:41 AM)

(6 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JD:21664] [CFA-35/2023]
11.This Court further finds it imperative to advert to another
significant facet of the matter, namely the immeasurable
pain, suffering, hardship and displacement endured by the
appellants consequent to the destruction of their dwelling
house. The material available on record unmistakably
indicates that the deceased and his family were residing in a
modest hut, which itself reflects their limited economic
means and vulnerable socio-economic condition. A person
does not ordinarily reside in a temporary hut or fragile
shelter out of choice when possessed of sufficient financial
resources to secure a safer and permanent accommodation.
The very fact that the appellants were residing in such a
humble structure gives rise to a natural and reasonable
presumption that they lacked the financial capacity to
immediately reconstruct or arrange an alternate shelter after
the incident. Therefore, the destruction of the hut cannot be
viewed merely as loss of a physical structure; rather, it
resulted in prolonged human suffering, insecurity and
deprivation of the most basic necessity of civilized existence,
namely shelter.
12.Shelter is not a luxury but a fundamental condition of human
dignity and survival. Once the dwelling of the appellants was
reduced to ashes due to the negligent maintenance of the
live electric line by the respondents, the family was
inevitably exposed to untold hardship and uncertainty. This
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:25:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/06/2026 at 12:24:41 AM)

(7 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JD:21664] [CFA-35/2023]
Court cannot remain oblivious to the ground realities
prevailing in rural and economically weaker sections of
society. A family living in a hut does not ordinarily possess
the immediate financial means to reconstruct a residence
within a few days. Had the appellants possessed such
economic capacity, the reconstruction could perhaps have
been undertaken promptly; however, the surrounding
circumstances probabilize otherwise. It can safely be inferred
that for a considerable period, the appellants would have
been compelled to live without adequate shelter, comfort,
privacy and security, thereby suffering continuous mental
agony, inconvenience and emotional trauma. Such suffering
is neither abstract nor imaginary; it is a direct and inevitable
consequence flowing from the negligent act attributable to
the respondents.
13.The concept of “just compensation” cannot be confined to a
narrow arithmetic calculation of pecuniary loss alone. Modern
compensation jurisprudence recognizes that in cases
involving destruction of shelter and deprivation of basic living
conditions, the Court must adopt a humane, realistic and
socially responsive approach. The loss occasioned in the
present case is not limited merely to the death of the
deceased, grave though it is, but extends to the collapse of
the family’s sense of stability and continuity of life. The
appellants would have undergone prolonged pain and
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:25:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/06/2026 at 12:24:41 AM)

(8 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JD:21664] [CFA-35/2023]
suffering, uncertainty regarding rehabilitation, and social
hardship, which the learned trial Court has completely failed
to consider while quantifying compensation.
14.This Court is therefore of the considered view that the
compensation awarded by the learned trial Court remained
wholly symbolic and failed to account for the cumulative
effect of the fatal electrocution, destruction of the dwelling
house, prolonged deprivation of shelter, and the consequent
physical and emotional suffering endured by the appellants.
The law does not contemplate grant of compensation in a
manner which merely acknowledges liability; rather,
compensation must possess a restorative character capable
of meaningfully alleviating the suffering caused to the
victims. Any assessment ignoring the realities of
displacement and destitution would defeat the very object
underlying the Fatal Accident Act and the broader principles
governing public law and tortious liability.
15.This Court is also of the considered opinion that the act of
the deceased in attempting to douse fire and salvage
belongings cannot be construed as negligence; rather, it
reflects a natural human response in an emergent situation.
The law does not expect a person to remain a passive
spectator when his dwelling is engulfed in flames.
16.The trial Court has also failed to adequately appreciate that
compensation under the Fatal Accident Act is not confined to
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:25:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/06/2026 at 12:24:41 AM)

(9 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JD:21664] [CFA-35/2023]
strict dependency alone. Even in cases where dependency
may be limited or not strictly proved, compensation towards
loss of estate, loss of love and affection, and other
conventional heads must be awarded in a just and
reasonable manner.
17.Thus, the impugned judgment, to the extent it relates to
quantification of compensation, suffers from material
irregularity, misapplication of legal principles, and a failure to
exercise jurisdiction in accordance with settled norms of
compensation law.
Final Order:
18.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm
opinion that the compensation awarded by the learned trial
Court is grossly inadequate and warrants enhancement.
19.Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The
amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court
is modified and determined at ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs only) in place of ₹1,25,000/-, keeping in view the
untimely death of the deceased, the negligent conduct
attributable to the respondents, and the additional
aggravating circumstance that the dwelling house of the
appellants stood completely destroyed in the incident,
thereby subjecting the family to prolonged hardship, pain,
suffering and deprivation of shelter.
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:25:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/06/2026 at 12:24:41 AM)

(10 of 10)
[2026:RJ-JD:21664] [CFA-35/2023]
20.The enhanced compensation of ₹3,00,000/- shall be payable
to the appellants along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 04.04.2018 till
actual realization. The liability of the respondents shall
remain joint and several, as directed by the learned trial
Court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
173-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:25:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/06/2026 at 12:24:41 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)