SHRI PARMANAND PRADHAN vs SHRI BHOJKUMAR PATEL

1

CGHC010277512025 2026:CGHC:46714-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
SAIFAN
KHAN
Judgment reserved on: 15-10-2026
SAIFAN
KHAN
Judgment delivered on: 04-11-2026
Judgment (Full) uploaded on: 04-11-2026
FA No. 151 of 2025
{Arising out of judgment and decree dated 5-3-2025 in Civil Suit No.H
09 B/2023 of the Principal District Judge, Mahasamund}
1 - Shri Parmanand Pradhan S/o Shri Mahadev Pradhan Aged About 49
Years Caste - Kolta, R/o Village - Pirda, P.S. - Basna, Tahsil - Pithora,
District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, (Claimants)
2 - Shri Gupteshwar Pradhan S/o Shri Parmanand Pradhan Aged About
26 Years Caste - Kolta, R/o Village - Pirda, P.S. - Basna, Tahsil - Pithora,
District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
3 - Shri Rajendra Pradhan S/o Shri Parmanand Pradhan Aged About 27
Years 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 Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution
Company Maryadit, Pirda, P.S. - Basna, Tahsil - Pithora, District -
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

2
4 - Executive Engineer (S/ S) Division Chhattisgarh State Electricity
Distribution Company Maryadit, Division Mahasamund, District -
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
(Defendants)
... 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 and sons of deceased
Kanchan 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 09 B/2023, Shri
Parmanand 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

3
appellants/plaintiffs was for compensation on account of the
death of Kanchan Pradhan due to electrocution . The present
appeal is confined to 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
₹23,36,000/- against the respondents/defendants on account
of the death of Smt. Kanchan 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-
Kanchan Pradhan alongwith Smt. Anusuiya 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

4
agricultural pump installed in the field, which was being used by
defendant No.1 for agricultural purposes.
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 ₹23,36,000/- under the following heads:

5
(i) Loss of income and dependency of the deceased ₹ 18,36,000/-
(ii) Compensation towards mental and physical
suffering of plaintiff No.1 – husband
₹ 2,00,000/-
(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 ₹ 23,36,000/-
-: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

6
installation and had been negligent in ensuring the safety of the
barbed-wire fencing installed around the agricultural field.
According to their defence, electric current passed into the
fencing due to such negligence, resulting in the death of Smt.
Kanchan 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 :-
The Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence
8.
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

कंचनप्रधानकीमृत्यु
,
होनाप्रमाणित जिसमें

प्रतिवादीगणकी
"
लापरवाहीथी।

विद्युतकनेक्शनकोअत्यन्तउपेक्षापूर्वकबिना
,
रखरखावकेकांटातारमेंविद्युतप्रवाहितकरनेसे

उसकेसम्पर्कमेंआकरकंचनप्रधानकीविद्युत
?
करेंटसेमृत्युहुई
" ,
वादीगण
2.

कंचन
क्यावादीगणमृतका प्रधानकीविद्युतघात

सेमृत्युकेकारणक्षतिपूर्ति राशि प्रतिवादीगणसे

प्रतिवादीगणसेसंयुक्त

7
-
पृथक पृथकयासंयुक्तरूपसेपानेकेअधिकारी
? ?
हैं यदिहाँतोकिससेएवंकितना
-
एवं पृथक पृथक

दायित्व में
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, Gupteshwar Pradhan (PW-1), Luxmi
Patra (PW-2) and Kuleshwar Kumar (PW-3) have been
examined on behalf of the appellants/plaintiff . In support of
his oral testimony, appellants/plaintiffs have exhibited 28
documents as Exs.P-1 to P-28
.
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

8
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 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.

9
(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 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 25% future prospectus has been
considered before the learned Trial Court in view of the
judgment reported in National Insurance Company Ltd.
1
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
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680

10
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.
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

11
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 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

12
compensation must be determined by applying the overarching
principle of awarding just, fair and reasonable compensation,
having regard to the proven 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 Kanchan 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

13
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. 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 Kanchan Pradhan :-
22. At the outset, while considering the income of the deceased
Kanchan 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 Kanchan Pradhan has been stated
to be between 45 years . Her age is also recorded as 45 years in
the Merg Intimation Ex.P-5 , the Inquest Report Ex.P-13 and the

14
Post-mortem Report Ex.P-20 . However, no documentary
evidence establishing her actual age has been produced. Even her
husband, Parmanand Pradhan (P.W.-1) , has not stated
anything in his deposition regarding her age. Thus, in the absence
of any reliable evidence conclusively establishing her age a s 45
years , this Court considers it appropriate to place the deceased
in the age group of 46–50 years for the purpose of determining
compensation.
Assessment of Income of the Deceased:-
23. So far as the income of deceased Kanchan Pradhan is
concerned, her husband, Parmanand 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

15
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/- .
Addition Towards Future Prospects:-
25. It is noteworthy that deceased Kanchan 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 46 to 50 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

16
of 46 to 50 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 13 is applicable.
Accordingly, the loss of dependency is assessed at ₹11,96,000/-
(₹92,000 × 13), 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 Kanchan 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 × 13 ₹11,96,000/-
Total compensation ₹11,96,000/-
29. In view of the aforesaid assessment, this Court is of the
considered opinion that a total compensation of ₹11,96,000/-
(Rupees Eleven Lakh Ninety-Six Thousand only) would

17
constitute just, fair and reasonable compensation for the
death of deceased Kanchan Pradhan . Accordingly, the
appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to receive the aforesaid amount
of compensation.
-: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 Kanchan Pradhan is enhanced from
₹4,50,000/- to ₹11,96,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Ninety-Six
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.

18
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
S@if