SHRI SADANAND PRADHAN vs SHRI BHOJKUMAR PATEL

Page 1 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)

CGHC010276872025 2026:CGHC:46721-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
SAIFAN
KHAN
SAIFAN
KHAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA No. 157 of 2025
{Arising out of judgment and decree dated 5-3-2025 in Civil Suit No.H 08
B/2023 of the Principal District Judge, Mahasamund}
Judgment reserved on: 15-10-2026
Judgment delivered on: 04-11-2026
Judgment (Full) uploaded on: 04-11-2026
1. Shri Sadanand Pradhan, aged about 43 years, S/o Shri Girdhari
Pradhan,
2. Ku. Nandani Pradhan, aged about 19 years, D/o Shri Sadanand
Pradhan,
3. Shri Kuber Pradhan, aged about 18 years, S/o Shri Sadanand
Pradhan
All Caste Kolta, R/o Village Pirda, P.S. Basna, Tahsil Pithora, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
(Plaintiffs)
... Appellants
versus
1. Shri Bhojkumar Patel, S/o late Benulal Patel, aged about 47 years,
Caste Aghariya, R/o Village Pirda, P.S. Basna, Tahsil Pithora, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Sadkunwar Patel, W/o late Venulal Patel, aged about 67 years,
Caste Aghariya, R/o Village Pirda, P.S. Basna, Tahsil Pithora, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
3. Shri Junior Engineering Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution
Company Maryadit Pirda, P.S. Basna, Tahsil Pithora, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

Page 2 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
4. Executive Engineer (S/S) Division Chhattisgarh State Electricity
Distribution Company Maryadit, Division Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Shyam, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.
For Respondents No.3 & 4: Mr. Raja Sharma and Miss Aditi Parakh, Advocates.
Division Bench: -
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu and
Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, JJ.
C.A.V. Judgment
Sushma Sawant, J.
1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , the appellants/plaintiffs,
being the husband, daughter and son of deceased Anusuiya
Pradhan , have preferred the present appeal against the judgment
and decree dated 05-03-2025 passed by the learned Principal
District Judge, Mahasamund (Presiding Officer Smt. Anita
Dahariya), in Civil Suit No. H 08 B/2023, Shri Sadanand
Pradhan and two others v. Shri Bhojkumar Patel and three
others , whereby compensation of ₹4,50,000/- was awarded on
account of her death due to electrocution. The appellants/plaintiff
seek enhancement of the compensation.
Note: It is clarified that the reference in the memo of appeal to an
application under Section 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act,
1923, is erroneous. The application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs
was for compensation on account of the death of Anusuiya Pradhan
due to electrocution . The present appeal is confined to

Page 3 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Court
below.
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual
backdrop: -
(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as
per their status shown and ranking given in the civil suit before the trial
Court.)
Factual Matrix
-: Case of the Appellants/plaintiffs before the Trial Court :-
3. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the learned trial Court
was that they had filed a plaint claiming compensation of
₹28,76,000/- against the respondents/defendants on account of
the death of Smt. Anusuiya Pradhan, alleging that her death
occurred due to electrocution as a result of the negligence of the
defendants. It was pleaded that on 11-07-2021 , deceased Smt.
Anusuiya Pradhan ( aged about 40 years ) and Kanchan Pradhan
were working as an agricultural labourer in a field situated at
Village - Pithora, Police Station - Basna, Tahsil - Pithora,
District -Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). At the relevant time, the
agricultural field was surrounded by barbed-wire fencing for
protection of crops. An electric connection bearing Service
Connection No. 1002584969 had been obtained for an
agricultural pump installed in the field, which was being used by
defendant No.1 for agricultural purposes.

Page 4 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
4. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, due to the negligence of
the defendants in maintaining the electrical installation and
ensuring the safety of the fencing, electric current passed into the
barbed-wire fencing. Consequently, the deceased came into contact
with the electrified wire, suffered an electric shock and died. It was
alleged that the incident occurred due to the failure of the
defendants to take adequate precautions and maintain the electrical
connection and fencing in a safe condition. It was further pleaded
that, in connection with the incident, a report was lodged at Police
Station Basna, pursuant to which Crime No.396/2021 was
registered against defendant Nos.1 and 2 for the offence
punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code . After
investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet before the Court
of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna.
5. The appellants/plaintiffs further contended that the deceased was a
healthy and hardworking woman who earned approximately
₹300/- per day by working as an agricultural labourer and was also
responsible for the maintenance, care and welfare of her family. On
account of her untimely death, the family was deprived of her
income, support, care and affection, causing substantial financial
loss and mental agony.On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the
appellants/plaintiffs claimed compensation of ₹28,76,000/- under
the following heads:
(i) Loss of income and dependency of the deceased ₹ 23,76,000/-
(ii) Compensation towards mental and physical
suffering of plaintiff No.1 – husband
₹ 2,00,000/-

Page 5 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
(iii) Compensation for deprivation of maternal love
₹ 2,00,000/-
and affection suffered by plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 –
daughter and son
(iv) Expenses incurred towards the funeral and last
₹ 1,00,000/-
rites of the deceased
Total ₹ 28,76,000/-
-:Written Statement of Respondents No.1 & 2/Defendants
No.1 & 2 before the Trial Court:-
6. Defendants No.1 & 2 filed their written statement denying the
material allegations made in the plaint and disputing their liability
to pay compensation. They have contended that they were neither
jointly nor severally responsible for the death of the deceased. It
was specifically denied that any accident had occurred due to the
electric connection bearing Service Connection
No.1002584969. They have further contended that police report
had been lodged falsely with the intention of extracting
compensation from them. On these grounds, they have contended
that the appellants /plaintiffs were not entitled for any relief and
prayed for dismissal of the application.
-:Written Statement of Respondents No.3 & 4/Defendants
No.3 & 4 before the Trial Court:-
7. Defendants No.3 & 4, in their written statement, pleaded that the
electricity connection bearing Service Connection No.1002584969
stood in the name of defendant No.2 and was being used by
defendant No.1. They have further pleaded that defendant No.1 had
failed to properly maintain the electrical installation and had been
negligent in ensuring the safety of the barbed-wire fencing installed

Page 6 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
around the agricultural field. According to their defence, electric
current passed into the fencing due to such negligence, resulting in
the death of Smt. Anusuiya Pradhan . They have also pleaded
that only defendants No.1 & 2 are responsible for the said accident
against whom a report was lodged at Police Station Basna and the
plaintiffs have to prove their case by leading legal evidence of the
witnesses. They denied the allegations levelled against them to the
extent stated in the pleadings and disputed the claim for
compensation.
-:Proceedings before learned Trial Court :-
8. The Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence
available on record, framed following issue and answered the issue as
under:-
S.No. Question for Consideration Finding
1. 11-07-2021
क्याघटनादिनाँक कोग्रामपिरदा

थाना बसना तहसीलपिथौराजिलामहासमुन्द
,
स्थि तघटनास्थलखेत जिसमेंसुरक्षार्थकंटीला
,
तारवफेंसिंगलगाहै जिसेखेतीकार्यहेतु
. 01 02
प्रतिवादीक्रं एवं फेंसिंगनिष्कर्षतारमें
,
विद्युतकनेक्शनलगाकरउपयोगमेंलातेहैं जो
"
विद्युतकरेन्टलगनेसे

अनुसुईयाप्रधानकी
,
मृत्युहोनाप्रमाणित

जिसमेंप्रतिवादीगण
"
कीलापरवाहीथी।

विद्युतकनेक्शनकोअत्यन्तउपेक्षापूर्वकबिना
,
रखरखावकेकांटातारमेंविद्युतप्रवाहितकरनेसे

उसकेसम्पर्कमेंआकरअनुसुईयाप्रधानकीविद्युत
?
करेंटसेमृत्युहुई
2.
क्यावादीगणमृतकाअनुसुईयाप्रधानकीविद्युत
" ,
वादीगण

घात से मृत्यु के कारण क्षतिपूर्ति राशि
-
प्रतिवादीगणसेपृथक पृथकयासंयुक्तरूपसे
?
पानेकेअधिकारीहैं यदि हाँतोकिससेएवं
?
कितना

प्रतिवादीगणसेसंयुक्त
-
एवं पृथक पृथक

दायित्व में

Page 7 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
4,50,000/-
रूपये

प्राप्त करने के
"
अधिकारीहैं।
3. ? " -25
अनुतोषएवंवादव्यय कण्डि का में
"
पारितडिक्रीअनुसार
-:Details of evidence and documents available before the Trial
Court:-
-:Evidence led by the appellants/pl aintiffs:-
9. Before the Trial Court, Sadanand Pradhan (PW-1), Luxmi
Patra (PW-2) and Duleshwer Deewan (PW-3) have been
examined on behalf of the appellants/plaintiff . In support of his
oral testimony, appellants/plaintiffs have exhibited 26 documents as
Exs.P-1 to P-26 .
Evidence led by the respondents/defendants :-
10. On behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, Bhoj Kumar Patel (DW-1) &
Surendra Kumar Patel (DW-2) were examined. However, no
documentary evidence was adduced by them. Defendant Nos. 3 and
4 neither examined any witness nor adduced any documentary
evidence in support of their defence.
-:Judgment and findings of the trial Court:-
11. After conclusion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment and
decree, the learned Court below partly allowed the suit and awarded
a total compensation of ₹4,50,000/- to the appellants/plaintiffs
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Being aggrieved by

Page 8 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the
appellants/plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of the
present appeal, on the following grounds : -
(i) The learned Principal District Judge has awarded very less
amount of compensation, hence the same is liable to be enhanced.
(ii) The award dated 5-3-2025 is partly bad in law as well as on
facts available on record.
(iii) The learned Principal District Judge has directed to pay 50%
50% of the awarded compensation amount fastened upon the
owner and CSEB which is wrongly find out fastened upon the
owner, because as per 4.6 of Chapter-4 Electricity Apurty Act,
CSEB is whole responsible pay any compensation and hence CSEB
is liable to pay whole the compensation amount.
(iv) The appellants/plaintiffs have examined the witnesses and
they have proved the case of the appellants/plaintiffs therefore the
learned Principal District Judge ought to have awarded the entire
claimed amount.
(v) The learned Principal District Judge has wrongly assessed the
income of the deceased and also 40% future prospectus which is
violation of the Employee’s Compensation Act.
(vi) The learned Principal District Judge has wrongly applied the
multiplier.
(vii) The learned Principal District Judge has committed grave
legal error in holding that the deceased used to earn ₹ 9,000/- per

Page 9 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
month. It ought to have assessed income of the deceased ₹
4,50,000/- as lump-sum in the impugned award dated 5-3-2025
as she was working as labour as per Schedule-B of the State
Government and the learned Trial Court has also flailed to see
that the incident took place in the year 2021 and for that year, the
minimum wages fixed by the State Government was ₹ 9,000/- as
per Schedule-B and 40% future prospectus has been considered
before the learned Trial Court in view of the judgment reported in
1
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi .
(viii) The learned Principal District Judge has committed grave
error in not considering the mental difficulties and irreparable
loss of the appellants at the time of passing award.
(ix) The learned Principal District Judge has not appreciated the
oral and documentary evidence available on record in its true
perspective and passed the erroneous award.
(x) The learned Principal District Judge has wrongly assessed the
interest of 10% whereas it should be 12%.
(xi) The learned Principal District Judge has awarded very less
compensation amount of ₹ 4,50,000/-, but ignoring this facts
while passing impugned award dated 5-3-2025, hence the said
claim should be awarded as per Sections 3 and 4(a) of the
Employee's Compensation Act.
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680

Page 10 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
12.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment & decree as well as the record of the Trial
Court.
-:Arguments of the Appellants/Plaintiffs:-
13.Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, in support of the
appeal, has advanced detailed arguments in terms of the grounds
raised in the memo of appeal and has mainly questioned the
quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Court below. It is
contended that the learned Trial Court, while determining the
compensation, has ignored the settled principles governing the
assessment of compensation and has awarded an exceptionally
inadequate amount. It is further contended that, for the purpose of
assessing the income of the deceased woman, the learned Trial
Court ought to have taken into consideration the applicable
minimum wages instead of adopting an unreasonably low
assessment of her income. Accordingly, it is submitted that the
impugned judgment and decree, to the extent of determination of
compensation, deserves to be modified by enhancing the
compensation payable to the appellants/plaintiffs.
-:Arguments of the Respondents/Defendants:-
14. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, while
supporting the impugned judgment and decree, has submitted that
the learned Trial Court has rightly assessed the compensation on the
basis of the evidence and material available on record. It is
contended that the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to establish any

Page 11 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
ground warranting interference with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the
compensation awarded, along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum, is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit,
deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree be
affirmed.
-:Analysis of the Appellate Court :-
15.
The appellants/plaintiffs, during the course of arguments, confined
their submissions primarily to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, relying
upon the compensation determined in Om Prakash Sahu v.
Chhattisgarh State and Others, 2022 (2) HCCD 825 (CG) ,
awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹4,50,000/- in the
present case as well, without independently examining the evidence
and material available on record.
16. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v.
Rekha and Others , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1545 , relying upon
the decisions in Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran
Nigam Ltd. , (2014) 15 SCC 1 , and Balram Prasad v. Kunal
Saha , (2014) 1 SCC 384, has reiterated that compensation must
be determined by applying the overarching principle of awarding
just, fair and reasonable compensation, having regard to the proven

Page 12 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
income and the relevant facts established before the competent
forum.
17. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned trial
Court determined the compensation at a lump sum without
independently examining the evidence and material available on
record or considering the other relevant factors. It was, therefore,
necessary for the learned trial Court to assess what would constitute
just, fair and reasonable compensation for the death of deceased
Anusuiya Pradhan , having regard to the facts and evidence of the
present case.
18. In view of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the income of the deceased is required to be assessed on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.
However, determination of compensation does not rest merely upon
assessment of the income of the deceased. Other relevant factors,
such as loss of dependency, deduction towards personal and living
expenses and future prospects also require consideration.
19. Since no specific uniform formula has been prescribed for
determining compensation in electrocution cases, it is necessary
to adopt consistent and well-recognized principles for
assessing these components so as to ensure uniformity
and avoid arbitrary determination of compensation. In this
regard, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6
SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v.

Page 13 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 provide a reasonable and
workable basis for such assessment.
20. Accordingly, this Court considers it appropriate to follow the
aforesaid principles as guiding principles, with due regard to the
facts and evidence of the present case, while determining just, fair
and reasonable compensation, without mechanically importing
the statutory formula under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
21.For the purpose of determining just, fair and reasonable
compensation in the present case, this Court considers it
appropriate to adopt the following guiding principles:
Particulars Principles to be followed
Income Assessment on the basis of the
available oral and documentary
evidence
Future prospects Principles laid down in Pranay Sethi
Just, fair and reasonable
Principles laid down in Sarla Verma
compensation
Age of Deceased Anusuiya Pradhan :-
22. At the outset, while considering the income of the deceased
Anusuiya Pradhan , it is necessary to determine her age, as the
same is relevant for assessing the appropriate multiplier. In the
plaint, the age of deceased Anusuiya Pradhan has been stated to
be 40 years . Her age is also recorded as 40 years in the Merg
Intimation - Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5 , the Inquest Report Ex.P-12 and
the Post-mortem Report Ex.P-17 . However, no documentary
evidence establishing her actual age has been produced. Even her
husband, Sadanand Pradhan (P.W.-1) , has not stated anything

Page 14 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
in his deposition regarding her age. Thus, in the absence of any
reliable evidence conclusively establishing her age a s 40 years , this
Court considers it appropriate to place the deceased in the age group
of 41–45 years for the purpose of determining compensation.
Assessment of Income of the Deceased:-
23.
So far as the income of deceased Anusuiya Pradhan is
concerned, her husband, Sadanand Pradhan (P.W.-1) , has
adduced oral evidence stating that his wife was healthy and
hardworking and used to earn ₹300/- per day by doing labour
work. Admittedly, no documentary evidence has been produced to
establish her actual income. Nevertheless, the fact that the deceased
was a healthy and able-bodied woman cannot be overlooked. Even
in the absence of proof of actual earnings, a person contributes to
the family through his or her capacity to work and perform various
activities.
24.
In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to assess her
income on the basis of the minimum wages prescribed by the
Government and applicable on the date of the incident, i.e., 11-07-
2021 . Having regard to the applicable rate of minimum wages for
an unskilled worker falling under Zone 'C', and in the absence of any
evidence to establish that the deceased was engaged in skilled or
semi-skilled work, her monthly income is assessed at ₹9,200/-.
Accordingly, her annual income comes to (₹9,200 × 12) =
₹1,10,400/- .

Page 15 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
Addition Towards Future Prospects:-
25. It is noteworthy that deceased Anusuiya Pradhan was neither
employed in Government service nor was her income fixed, but was
self-employed. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Pranay Sethi and Others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , and having
regard to the age of the deceased, falling within the age group of 41
to 45 years , an addition of 25% towards future prospects is
warranted. The said addition comes to ₹27,600/- on her annual
income of ₹1,10,400/-. Thus, after adding the aforesaid amount,
the annual income of the deceased comes to ₹1,38,000/- .
Assessment of Loss of Dependency:-
26. Having regard to the number of dependents and in view of the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla
Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 , one-third of the income, i.e.,
₹46,000/- , is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of
the deceased. Consequently, the annual loss of dependency comes to
₹92,000/- .
27.
So far as the applicable multiplier is concerned, the age of the
deceased at the time of the accident falls within the age group of
41 to 45 years . Therefore, in accordance with the principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and
Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another ,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 14 is applicable. Accordingly,

Page 16 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
the loss of dependency is assessed at ₹12,88,000/- (₹92,000 × 14),
which the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to receive under this
head.
28. In view of the aforesaid assessment, the compensation payable on
account of the death of deceased Anusuiya Pradhan is
determined as follows:
S. No. Heads of
Calculation Amount
compensation
(i) Monthly income — ₹9,200/-
(ii) Annual income ₹9,200 × 12 ₹1,10,400/-
(iii) Addition towards future
₹1,10,400 × 25% ₹27,600/-
prospects (25%)
(iv) Annual income after
₹1,10,400 +
₹1,38,000/-
addition of future
₹27,600
prospects
(v) Deduction towards
₹1,38,000 × 1/3 ₹46,000/-
personal and living
expenses (1/3)
(vi) Annual loss of
₹1,38,000 −
₹92,000/-
dependency
₹46,000
(vii) Loss of dependency ₹92,000 × 14 ₹12,88,000/-
Total compensation ₹12,88,000/-
29.
In view of the aforesaid assessment, this Court is of the considered
opinion that a total compensation of ₹12,88,000/- (Rupees
Twelve Lakh Eighty-Eight Thousand only) would constitute
just, fair and reasonable compensation for the death of deceased
Anusuiya Pradhan . Accordingly, the appellants/plaintiffs are
entitled to receive the aforesaid amount of compensation.

Page 17 of 17
(FA No.157/2025)
-:Final Conclusion:-
30. In view of the foregoing discussion and assessment, the appeal
deserves to be allowed in part. The impugned judgment and decree
dated 05-03-2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge,
Mahasamund, are accordingly modified to the extent that the
compensation payable to the appellants/plaintiffs on account of the
death of deceased Anusuiya Pradhan is enhanced from
₹4,50,000/- to ₹12,88,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Eighty-Eight
Thousand only).
31. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition
until its realization. Having regard to the nature of the incident, the
loss suffered by the claimants and the time elapsed in pursuing the
claim, this rate of interest is considered just and reasonable.
32. The liability of the respondents/defendants to satisfy the
aforesaid compensation and the manner of its disbursement shall
remain governed by the directions contained in the impugned
judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, except to the extent
modified herein.
33. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part with the aforesaid
modification. The parties shall bear their own costs. A decree be
drawn up accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant)
JUDGE JUDGE
Soma/saif