PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED vs VAGHJIBHAI TAPUBHAI BARBASIYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
Reserved On : 19/06/2026
Pronounced On : 03/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3686 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3686 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
Versus
VAGHJIBHAI TAPUBHAI BARBASIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”), has been preferred by
the appellants assailing the judgment and decree dated
th
10.03.2017 passed by learned 13 Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Bhavnagar in Special Civil Suit No.193 of 2000. By the
said judgment and decree, the learned Trial Court decreed the
suit filed for compensation on account of the death of the
deceased due to electrocution and directed the defendants to
pay a sum of Rs.8,05,120/- with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization in
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
favour of the plaintiffs.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the
parties are referred to their original status and position of the
learned City and Civil Court.
3. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the
impugned judgment, are as under:
3.1 The plaintiffs, who are the wife and children of
deceased Vaghjibhai Tapubhai Barbasiya, filed a suit for
recovery of Rs.12,50,000/- with interest as compensation for
his death due to electrocution. According to the plaintiffs, on
26.06.1998, during the morning hours, the deceased was
working in the agricultural field of Vasurbhai Vasigbhai
Dheela with a garden rake. While carrying out the agricultural
work, the garden rake came into contact with the earthing
wire attached to an electric pole. Since live electric current
was passing through the earthing wire, the deceased suffered
an electric shock and died on the spot.
3.2 It is the case of the plaintiffs that one of the four
live electric conductors mounted on the electric pole had
become loose after getting detached from the jumper and
came into contact with the stay clamp, to which the earthing
wire was connected. Consequently, the earthing wire became
live, and when the garden rake being used by the deceased
came into contact with the earthing wire, he suffered a fatal
electric shock and died instantaneously.
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
3.3 It is further alleged that Paschim Gujarat Vij
Company Limited (for short, "PGVCL") was under a statutory
duty to properly maintain the electricity distribution system in
accordance with the applicable Electricity Rules. However,
PGVCL failed to maintain the jumper properly, as a result of
which, the live conductor became loose and came into contact
with the stay wire, ultimately causing the unfortunate
incident. It is further pleaded that the deceased was engaged
in agricultural activities on a partnership basis with
Vasurbhai, Punjabhai and Mhesurbhai and was earning
approximately Rs.1,55,000/- per annum, from which he
maintained his family. It is also pleaded that the deceased was
40 years of age at the time of the incident and, had he
survived, would have continued to earn for at least another 16
years. The plaintiffs further claimed compensation towards
loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses. On these averments, the plaintiffs filed the
suit for compensation.
3.4 Only defendant No.1 - PGVCL appeared and filed
written statement at Exh.77. In the written statement, the
allegations made in the plaint were generally denied. It is
further contended that the deceased himself was negligent
and had failed to exercise due care while carrying out
agricultural work. It is also pleaded that electricity is an
inherently dangerous and hazardous commodity and PGVCL
had, from time to time, issued public notices cautioning the
public not to bring any agricultural implements or other
objects into contact with electric poles or transmission lines.
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
According to PGVCL, the deceased failed to follow such safety
instructions and, therefore, the accident occurred solely due
to his own negligence. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit
was prayed for.
3.5 The learned Trial Court framed the issues at
Exh.22 and permitted both parties to lead evidence. After
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Trial Court assessed the annual income of the deceased,
added 30% towards future prospects, deducted one-fifth
towards personal and living expenses, and applied a multiplier
of 15 for computing the loss of dependency. In addition
thereto, the learned Trial Court awarded compensation under
the conventional heads, including loss of consortium and loss
of estate. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court awarded a total
compensation of Rs.8,05,120/- with interest at the rate of 8%
per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
3.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and decree, the appellants-original defendants,
namely PGVCL, have preferred the present appeal before this
Court.
4 Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave appearing
for the appellants – original defendants and learned advocate
Mr.Hiren Modi appearing for the respondents – original
plaintiffs.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Dave appearing for the
appellants made twofold submissions to assail the impugned
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
judgment. Firstly, he submitted that the present case is one of
contributory negligence, or rather self-negligence, on the part
of the deceased. According to him, the deceased, while
working in the agricultural field of Vasurbhai, failed to take
sufficient precaution and due care to avoid the unfortunate
incident. He submitted that the deceased was carrying out
agricultural operations in close proximity to the electric pole
without exercising the necessary caution and, as a result,
sustained a fatal electric shock. He further submitted that the
plaintiffs failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish that
PGVCL had neglected its duty to maintain the electricity
distribution system or any live conductor had become loose
from the jumper and had come into contact with the stay wire
or the earthing wire. In the absence of such evidence, it is
submitted that the accident occurred solely due to the
negligence of the deceased and, therefore, the learned Trial
Court committed a serious error in awarding compensation.
5.1 Secondly, learned advocate Mr. Dave submitted
that the accident occurred in the year 1998, when the
deceased was about 40 years of age. The learned Trial Court
assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/-
despite there being no documentary evidence in support
thereof, which works out to approximately Rs.4,167/- per
month. According to him, the prevailing minimum wages at
the relevant time were approximately Rs.1,700/- per month, or
in any case less than Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, the
learned Trial Court had assessed the income of the deceased
on the higher side, resulting in excessive compensation. He
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
submitted that, in the absence of any documentary evidence
regarding the deceased's income, the proper yardstick for
determining the income ought to have been the prevailing
minimum wages.
5.2 In view of the aforesaid submissions, he submitted
to reassess the compensation by adopting the minimum wage
as the basis for computation and prayed to allow the present
appeal.
6. Per contra , learned advocate Mr. Modi appearing
for the original plaintiffs supported the impugned judgment
and decree. He submitted that the learned Trial Court has
awarded compensation of only Rs.8,05,120/- for the loss of the
life of 40 years earning member, who left behind large family
consisting of seven dependents. He submitted that the very
fact that the deceased was maintaining such a large family
raises a reasonable presumption that he was earning well
more than the prevailing minimum wages.
6.1 He further submitted that the oral evidence of
plaintiff No.1 as well as the testimony of Vasurbhai (P.W.1) at
Exh.74 clearly establish that the deceased was not merely a
daily wage labourer but was cultivating agricultural land on a
partnership basis and earning his livelihood from such
agricultural activities. He further submitted that even if this
Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court assessed the
income of the deceased on the higher side, it should also take
into consideration that only a meager amount of Rs.5,000/-
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
was awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss
of consortium, and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses.
These amounts are substantially lower than the compensation
now ordinarily awarded under the conventional heads.
Therefore, considering the overall computation, the learned
Trial Court has awarded just, fair and reasonable
compensation to the plaintiffs.
6.2 Insofar as the contention regarding self-negligence
is concerned, learned advocate Mr.Modi submitted that it is
well settled by a catena of decisions that the supply and
distribution of electricity is a hazardous and inherently
dangerous activity. Consequently, the principle of strict
liability squarely applies to claim arising out of electrocution.
Once the doctrine of strict liability is attracted, the defence of
self-negligence or contributory negligence is of limited or no
avail unless specifically established in law. He, therefore,
submitted that the contention raised by the learned advocate
for the appellants regarding self-negligence is devoid of merit
and deserves to be rejected.
6.3 On the aforesaid submissions, he prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. At the outset, having heard the learned advocates
appearing for both sides and upon considering the record and
proceedings, as well as the evidence led before the learned
Trial Court, the learned Trial Court framed the issues at
Exh.22, which read as under:
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, electric connection
and the wire of the electricity supply pole provided by the
defendants slipped out of the insulator and due to the falling
of the 'C' clamp, electric current passed into the earthing
wire, resulting in Vaghjibhai suffered an electric shock and
passed away?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that Vaghjibhai passed away
due to the negligence of the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that they are entitled to
receive Rs. 12,50,000/- as compensation for the loss due to
Vaghjibhai's death?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that they are entitled to
receive 18% as claimed?
5. Whether the defendants prove that the wire was earthed
as per the rules. However, because the earthing wires were
broken by the defendants, Vaghjibhai suffered an electric
shock?
6. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs are not
entitled to receive any amount for the loss due to the death
of the deceased?
7. Whether the plaintiff proves that they are entitled to get
the relief as claimed?
8. What order and decree?
8. Issue Nos.1 and 2 answered in affirmative; Issue
Nos.3, 4 and 7 answered partly in affirmative; Issue Nos.5 and
6 answered in negative; and the suit was ultimately decided in
terms of the findings recorded on Issue No.8.
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
9. The fact that the deceased died due to electrocu-
th
tion is undisputed. It is also undisputed that, on 26 June,
1998, the deceased was working in the agricultural field of
Vasurbhai. While carrying out work on the garden shed, he
came into contact with electric current, as the shed was con-
nected to the earthing wire. The death of the deceased due to
electrocution stands proved by the postmortem report
(Exhs.62 and 63), the report issued by the Community Health
Centre, Sihor (Exh.60), and the spot panchnama produced by
the plaintiff, which was drawn in the presence of an officer of
the Electricity Company. The plaintiff has also produced the
panchnama at Exh.61, prepared by officers of the Electricity
Company. Both the panchnamas reveal that four electric wires
of the Electricity Board were passing near a Neem tree. It is
specifically recorded that one of the electric wires had be-
come detached from the jumper and had fallen upon the gar-
den shed. It is equally undisputed that the earthing wire was
attached to the shed. This clearly establishes that, on the date
of the accident, electric current was passing through the
earthing wire, which ordinarily should never have occurred.
The only reason for the current passing through the earthing
wire was that the live electric wire had detached from the
jumper and had fallen upon shed, to which, the earthing wire
was connected.
10. In these circumstances, the submission advanced
by learned advocate Mr. Dave that the deceased died due to
his own negligence deserves to be rejected. The material on
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
record clearly establishes negligence on the part of UGVCL in
failing to properly maintain the electric lines and in not taking
timely steps to repair or refit the loose conductor. It was this
negligence that resulted in the live wire falling on the shed,
thereby causing the electrocution and consequent death of the
deceased.
11. By no stretch of imagination can it be expected that
electric current would ordinarily pass through an earthing
wire. As discussed hereinabove, the live electric wire had be-
come detached from the jumper and had fallen on the shed, to
which the earthing wire was connected. Consequently, the
electric current passed through the earthing wire, which be-
came the direct and proximate cause of the deceased's death.
12. The present is a case in which the plaintiff has
sought compensation under the law of torts. In Ashby v. White
(1703) 2 Ld Raym 938 , it was observed (vide Pratt, C.J.):
“Torts are infinitely various, not limited or confined.” The
Jay Laxmi Salt Works
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
(P) Ltd. V. State of Gujarat reported in (1994) 4 SCC 1 (SCC
P.10, para 8)
“8. ….. law of torts being a developing law its frontiers are
incapable of being strictly barricaded.”
13. The theory of strict liability for hazardous activities
can be said to have originated from the historic judgment in
the British Court in Rylands v. Fletcher (1866 LR1 Ex 265) ,
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
before this decision the accepted legal position running in
England was that fault, whether by an intentional act or
negligence, is the basis of all liability. This principle was in
consonance with the then prevailing Laissez-Faire Theory.
However with the advance of industrialization the Laissez-
Faire Theory was gradually replaced by the theory of the
Welfare State, and in legal parlance there was a
corresponding shift from positivism to sociological
jurisprudence. It was then believed that there are certain
activities in industrial society, though are lawful are so
fraught with possibility of harm to others and the law has to
treat them as allowable only on the terms of insuring the
public against injury irrespective of who was at fault. In that
way, the doctrine of strict liability (also called no-fault
liability) was evolved, which was an exception to the general
principle in the law of tort that there is no liability without
fault. In Rylands v. Fletcher (supra), it was a case that
defendant who constructed the reservoir to supply water to
the mill, it was constructed over old coal mines, and the mill
owner had no reason to suspect that these old coal mine led to
an operating colliery. The water in the reservoir ran down the
old shafts and flooded the colliery. It was also held that the
mill owner was held liable, on the principle that:
"…..the person who for his own purposes brings on his land
and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if
it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do
so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequence of its escape".
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
14. In appeal House of Lords in Rylands v. Fletcher
(1868) LR 3HL 330 confirmed the principle of liability is a
fault, the judgment of Rylands v Flether predatorily, no legal
principle, there is principle of strict liability in the case of
hazardous activities.
15. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the
defendants' activity rather than, as in negligence, the way in
which it is carried on (vide 'Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn.,
p. 247). There are many activities which are so hazardous that
they may constitute a danger to the person or property of
another. The principle of strict liability states that the
undertakers of these activities have to compensate for the
damage caused by them irrespective of any fault on their part.
th
Fleming on Torts 6 Edition, Page No.302 says "permission to
conduct such activity is in effect made conditional on its
absorbing the cost of the accidents it causes, as an
appropriate item of its overheads" Thus, in cases where the
principle of strict liability applies, the defendant has to pay
damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the
defendant may not have been at any fault.
16. The doctrine of strict liability is two fold: (i) The
people who engage in particularly hazardous activities should
bear the burden of the risk of damage that their activities
generate and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution mechanism,
the person who does such hazardous activity (in the present
case PGVCL) being in the best position to spread the loss via
insurance and higher prices for its products. Thus, the
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
principle of strict liability assumes great significance in cases
involved death by electrocution. Electricity is recognized as a
dangerous substance. The generation, transmission and
distribution of electrical energy involve hazardous operations
requiring a high degree of care. Consequently, when a person
dies due to electrocution caused by a snap live were, leakage
of current, defective transformer, or failure of electrical
infrastructure maintained by electricity authority, the Court is
expected to invoke the doctrine of strict liability.
17. Sir Salmond, in his treatise on the Law of Torts,
observes that the law, in certain circumstances, imposes
liability without proof of negligence where the activity
undertaken is inherently dangerous. Likewise, Winfield on
Tort explains that a person who brings or maintains a
dangerous agency on his premises must bear the
consequences if it escapes and causes damage. Applying these
principles, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in M.P. Electricity
Board v. Shail Kumari , reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 , held
that the transmission and supply of electricity constitute a
hazardous activity and the supplier is strictly liable for death
or injury caused by electrocution, irrespective of proof of
negligence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through
the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the
managers of its supply have the added duty to take all
safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see
that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as
users of such road would be under peril.
The Court further held that where death is caused by a live
electric wire, the Electricity Board is liable on the principle
of strict liability, and the defence that a stranger illegally
siphoned electricity is not available.”
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
18. So long as the voltage of the electricity transmitted
through the wires is potentially of a dangerous dimension, the
managers of its supply have an added duty to take all
necessary safety measures to prevent the escape of such
energy. Invoking the principle of strict liability, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court further held that where death is caused by
contact with a live electric wire, the Electricity Board is liable
to pay compensation, and the defence that a stranger had
illegally siphoned or diverted electricity is not available to
absolve it of its liability.
19. The maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
applies to cases of strict liability and means that a person
must use his property in such a manner as not to cause injury
to another. Since the Electricity Authority derives benefit from
the supply and transmission of electricity, it must bear the
loss arising from its inherently dangerous activity when such
activity results in the death of a person. Thus, the doctrine
serves the dual purpose of ensuring compensation to the
victim and imposing a higher standard of responsibility upon
those engaged in hazardous activities.
20. As discussed hereinabove, the material on record
clearly establishes that electric current passed through the
earthing wire after the live electric wire came into contact
with it, resulting in the electrocution and death of the
deceased. The Electricity Company has hopelessly failed to
establish any negligence or contributory negligence on the
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
part of the deceased. Even assuming that some negligence on
the part of the deceased had been established, the Electricity
Company cannot escape its liability, as liability in tort arising
from the breach of a duty imposed by law cannot be avoided
merely by attributing fault to the deceased in the facts of the
present case. Therefore, the first contention advanced by
learned advocate Mr. Dave is devoid of merit and deserves to
be rejected.
20.1 The second contention advanced by learned
advocate Mr. Dave is that the learned Trial Court assessed the
income of the deceased on the higher side, resulting in award
of excessive compensation. This submission also does not
impress this Court.
21. The plaintiffs have produced sufficient substantial
documentary as well as oral evidence to establish that the
deceased, besides cultivating his own agricultural land
bearing Survey No.80/1, was also carrying on agricultural
activities in partnership with Punjabhai Jivabhai and
Vasurbhai. The Sarpanch of Khari Gram Panchayat issued a
certificate at Exh.55 certifying that the deceased was earning
approximately Rs.1,30,000/- per annum from agricultural
activities carried out in partnership with the aforesaid
persons. This Court is conscious that such a certificate, by
itself, may not conclusively establish the precise income of the
deceased. However, the evidence on record consistently
establishes that the deceased was not merely an agricultural
labourer but was actively engaged in agricultural operations
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
as a cultivating partner, sharing the produce with the
landowners and selling the agricultural produce in the open
market. Therefore, his income cannot be assessed merely on
the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled or
unskilled labourer.
22. The widow of deceased entered into the witness
box at Exh.29 and deposed regarding the income and
agricultural activities of the deceased. Her testimony is
corroborated by the evidence of Mr. Vasurbhai, examined at
Exh.70, who deposed that the deceased was cultivating
agricultural land in partnership with him and was entitled to a
share in the agricultural produce from the land owned by him.
In these circumstances, having regard to the nature of the
agricultural partnership and the oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that
the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in
assessing the income of the deceased.
23. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Shardaben Bhikhubhai Vekaria & Ors. v. Mayurbhai
Viththalbhai Movaliya & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.8364-65 of
2026, while considering the assessment of compensation, took
note of the fact that where the deceased was maintaining a
large family, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses should be made keeping in view the number of
dependents.
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
24. In the present case, the deceased was survived by
six legal heirs, all of whom were Class-I heirs and dependent
upon his income. It can, therefore, reasonably be presumed
that the deceased was earning sufficient income to maintain
his large family, which would necessarily be higher than the
minimum wages payable to an agricultural labourer. The
learned Trial Court granted an addition towards future
prospects at the rate of 30%. However, the amounts awarded
under the conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses, were on the lower side. The
learned Trial Court assessed the compensation in the absence
of the structured principles subsequently laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and determined what it considered to
be just and fair compensation. The amount awarded towards
consortium was only Rs.10,000/- for all the six dependents,
which is comparatively modest by present standards.
25. Considering the award as a whole, this Court is of
the opinion that the learned Trial Court has neither adopted
an erroneous method of computation nor awarded excessive
compensation. The total compensation of Rs.8,05,120/-
awarded for the death of a 40-year-old earning member
cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be excessive
or on the higher side. On the contrary, viewed in the overall
facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation
awarded is just, fair and reasonable.
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026
C/FA/3686/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
26. In view of the aforesaid reasons, appeal fails and
accordingly dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
Decree be drawn accordingly. R& P, if any, be sent back to
the concerned Court.
27. The amount, if any, lying deposited before this
Court, it shall be transmitted to the concerned Court. If any
amount has been deposited pursuant to the impugned
judgment and order, either before this Court or before the
learned Trial Court, the same shall be disbursed to the
plaintiffs in accordance with law.
28. Connected Civil Application, does not survive and
stands disposed of accordingly.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANOJ
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 18:05:04 IST 2026