PGVCL BHESAN SUB DIVISION vs LH OF DECD AMRUTBHAI @RAMESHBHAI BAVABHAI BHUVA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SA/316/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 316 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 316 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
PGVCL BHESAN SUB DIVISION
Versus
LH OF DECD AMRUTBHAI @RAMESHBHAI BAVABHAI BHUVA &
ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 29/06/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned advocate for the
appellant – Electricity Company.
1.1 The present appeal is filed under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter referred to as
"CPC" ) by the State Electricity Company, who lost in its first
appeal filed before the Appellate Court, whereby the Appellate
Court, vide its impugned judgment and order dated
29/04/2023, not only dismissed the appeal of the appellant but
enhanced the compensation than awarded by the Trial Court
in a suit filed by the respondents.
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 16:03:49 IST 2026
C/SA/316/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
2. The appellant herein is the original defendant, whereas
the respondents herein are the original plaintiffs. For the sake
of brevity, the parties will be referred to as per their original
status in the suit.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on night of 18/07/2011,
the husband of plaintiff No.1, the father of plaintiffs Nos.2 and
3 and the son of plaintiff No.4 got electrocuted and died due
to electrical shock, whereby succumbed to the electric injury.
An accidental death report was registered with the Bhesan
Police Station. It is the case of the plaintiffs that due to poor
maintenance of the electrical pole by the defendant -
Electricity Company, their predecessor died due to the
accidental injury, i.e., electrocution. Accordingly, a suit was
filed seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest.
3.1 The defendant-Electricity Company appeared in the suit
and filed its written statement and accordingly opposed the
suit. The respective parties have submitted their oral and
documentary evidence in support of their respective
case/defence.
3.2 After hearing the parties, the Trial Court arrived at a
conclusion that due to poor maintenance of the electrical pole
by the defendant and as such, as per the evidence of one of
the witnesses of the defendant, namely Ashokkumar
Bachubhai Gameti (examined at Exhibit 55), that the electrical
pole in question was not having any earthing wire, which was
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 16:03:49 IST 2026
C/SA/316/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
sine qua non to maintain the electrical pole, it arrived at a
definite conclusion that due to sheer negligence on the part of
the defendant, the predecessor of the plaintiffs succumbed to
electrical injuries. Accordingly, the Trial Court has worked out
compensation of Rs.5,54,000/- and directed the defendant to
pay the said amount with 7.5% interest from the date of suit
till realization.
3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant
Electricity Company had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.7
of 2021 and after hearing the parties, the first Appellate Court
not only confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Trial
Court against the defendant, but having noticed that there
was inadequate compensation awarded by the Trial Court,
which is not in accordance with law, while exercising
appellate power in the absence of any cross-objection filed by
the respondents-plaintiffs, it has enhanced the compensation
to Rs. 9,24,300/, albeit while dismissing the appeal of the
defendant.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT :
4. Mr.Meena, learned advocate for the appellant-original
defendant, would submit that the Courts below have
committed a serious error in law by arriving at the conclusion
that due to sheer negligence on the part of the defendant
Electricity Company, the predecessor of the plaintiffs
succumbed to injuries.
4.1 It is submitted that the plaintiffs had miserably failed to
prove the factum of electrocution by leading any cogent
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 16:03:49 IST 2026
C/SA/316/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
evidence; rather, the documentary evidence submitted by the
defendant in the form of the office report, panchnama, etc.,
would indicate that there was no negligence on the part of the
defendant; as such, the current was not passing from the pole
at which the deceased is alleged to have succumbed to
injuries. It is submitted that neither the Trial Court nor the
Appellate Court has properly considered the evidence of the
defendant, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
4.2 It is also submitted that the burden of proof was upon
the plaintiffs to prove their case beyond doubt and while
claiming damages from the defendant, and it was also
incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove the negligence of the
defendant, which they failed to do.
4.3 Mr. Meena, learned advocate, would also submit that in
the absence of any cross-objection filed by the plaintiffs, the
Appellate Court could not have enhanced the compensation
and, as such, it has committed a jurisdictional error in law by
enhancing the compensation by awarding in all Rs.9,24,300/-.
It is further submitted that as per the settled position of law,
in the absence of any cross-objection, the Appellate Court
could not have granted any benefit in favour of the
respondents to the appeal.
4.4 Making the above submissions, Mr.Meena, learned
advocate, would request this Court to entertain this appeal on
the substantial questions of law as framed above para 3 of the
memo of this appeal.
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 16:03:49 IST 2026
C/SA/316/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
ANALYSIS :
5. Having heard Mr.Meena, learned advocate for the
appellant and upon perusal of the judgments of the Courts
below, it has come out that the predecessor of the plaintiffs
died due to electrical shock. The Trial Court held, as
confirmed by the Appellate Court, that the defendant was
unable to substantiate that there was no negligence on its
part in maintaining the electrical pole, resulting in the injuries
to which the predecessor of the plaintiffs succumbed. It has
been specifically recorded by the Trial Court, as confirmed by
the Appellate Court, that as per the evidence of one of the
witnesses of the defendant, namely Ashokkumar Bachubhai
Gameti, examined at Exhibit 55, there was no earthing wire
available at the electrical pole in question, which is a
mandatory requirement in law. He is unable to explain under
which circumstances the said wire was not available at the
electrical pole. If such would be the position, and if the person
received an electrical shock, prima facie, it can be assumed
that it was due to sheer negligence on the part of the
defendant company, as it had not maintained the electrical
pole as per the requirement of law.
6. Moreover, as far as the defence set up by the defendant
before the Trial Court that there was an unauthorized use of
electricity by the deceased and due to such illegal act, he
succumbed to injuries, there is no evidence brought on record
by the defendant in support of such defence. It is correctly
observed by the Courts below that the defendant has failed to
bring on record any evidence in the form of any police report
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 16:03:49 IST 2026
C/SA/316/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
or an investigation report, as the case may be, whereby it can
be proved that there was any illegal act on the part of the
deceased which resulted into his death. Thus, in the absence
of any contrary material brought on record by the defendant,
and as the panchnama upon which it relied was prepared by
the defendant on the next day after the date of the incident, I
am also of the similar view as taken by the Courts below that
no reliance can be placed upon such panchnama.
7. Even otherwise, as per the settled position of law, this
Court cannot further re-appreciate the evidence on record
while examining a second appeal under Section 100 of the
CPC. (See: Jaichand (Dead) through Lrs. and others vs.
Sahnulal and others – 2024 SCC Online SC 3864 &
Rabindranath Panigrahi vs. Surendra Sahu – 2025 INSC
333 : 2025 SCC Online SC 504) .
8. So far as the other contention raised by Mr.Meena,
learned advocate for the appellant, that in the absence of any
cross-objection filed by the plaintiffs in the appeal filed by the
defendant, no compensation amount could have been
enhanced by the Appellate Court on its own, such contention
at the first instance looks attractive but upon deep scrutiny
and after going through the reasons assigned by the Appellate
Court, such contention fails. As per Order 41 Rule 33 of the
CPC, the Appellate Court is not powerless to grant such relief
in favour of a person who did not file cross-objection. One
must not forget the fact that ultimately suit was filed seeking
compensation for the death of person who lost his life due to
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 16:03:49 IST 2026
C/SA/316/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
tortious act of the defendant. In such type of cases, the Court
needs to grant an adequate, just and reasonable compensation
in accordance with law. [ See – Surekha & Ors. vs. Santosh
& Ors., reported in (2021) 16 SCC 467 ].
9. Moreover, the Appellate Court has correctly considered
the fact that the income of deceased considered by the Trial
Court is on the lower side vis-à-vis the date of the accident.
The Trial Court appears to have considered only Rs.3,000/- as
the income of the deceased for the accident which took place
on 18/07/2011. Whereas, the Appellate Court has considered
the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month from
agricultural activities plus Rs.1,800/- for earnings from tractor
and trolley. Thus, the Appellate Court has assessed the
income of the deceased @ Rs.6,800/- per month and
accordingly enhanced the compensation amount. It is to be
noted here that no prospective income was added in the
aforesaid income by the Appellate Court. Thus, considering
the entirety of the case and having taken note of the decisions
of the Hon'ble Apex Court and other Courts, the Appellate
Court has awarded just compensation of Rs.9,24,300/-.
10. Having considered the aforesaid totality of the facts and
circumstances and keeping in mind the age of the deceased,
number of dependents family members upon him and the year
of the accident, I am of the considered view that the
compensation awarded by the Appellate Court can never be
said to be either excessive or a windfall to the plaintiffs.
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 16:03:49 IST 2026
C/SA/316/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
11. In view of the aforesaid observations, discussion and
foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that there is no
case made out by the appellant-defendant for admission of the
second appeal, as according to my view, the substantial
questions of law framed above para 3 of this appeal memo
cannot be considered as substantial questions of law.
12. Accordingly, the present second appeal is devoid of any
merit and it is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Application also
stands disposed of.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 16:03:49 IST 2026