Gujarat High Court Upholds Compensation To Kin Of 18-Yr-Old Who Died Due To Electrocution By Low-Hanging Live Wire

The Gujarat High Court upheld a trial court order granting over Rs. 6 Lakh compensation to the mother of an 18-year-old boy who died due to electrocution caused by low-hanging live electric wires which got entangled with trees under which the deceased was standing to cut grass for grazing cattle. Justice Hemant Prachchhak in his order observed: “It is appropriate to note herein that it is the duty of the electric board to see that the electric wires do not touch the trees and for that the board has to appropriate steps. In present case, due to negligence on the part of the board, the son of respondent No.2 died untimely. Further, from the record it establishes that the wires were hanging and bent from the centre and had come near to the ground and same were touching the trees. In view of the above discussion, I am in complete agreement with the judgment and award passed by the trial Court. I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain present appeal.”The incident took place on March 2008 at around 5:00 pm wherein the deceased who was standing below the tress and cutting plants for grazing cattle got electrocuted due to electric line passing through the trees and subsequently died. Following the incident, the parents of the deceased filed a suit for recovery. The Trial Court had ordered Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. (appellant) to pay ₹6,25,000 along with interest of 9%. Against this the board moved the high court in appeal. The advocate for the appellant argued that the Trial Court passed the judgement without properly verifying the facts or considering the submissions made. He contended there was no negligence on appellant's part and the deceased should have been "reasonably vigilant while coming closer to the live electric wires and ought to have been aware of probable danger". He further contended that Trial Court erred in granting a large compensation despite contributory negligence. Furthermore, he argued that the Court wrongly concluded that the deceased was earning ₹4,500 monthly and was 18-years old, even though his birth date was not registered with Panchayat department and applying a multiplied of 18 for compensation assessment was, not in consonance with law. On these grounds, the Counsel urged the Court to set aside the judgement of the Trail Court. The counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 (father of the deceased) submitted that the deceased's father passed away during the appeal, therefore, the mother is now the sole respondent. The counsel then argued that the Trial Court rightly held the appellant negligent after examining extensive evidence and hearing both the sides. Further, he submitted that the said fact was fully supported by independent witnesses and the documentary evidence placed on record. He then requested the Court to dismiss the present appeal.The Court noted that the Trial Court, after thoroughly examining the documents answered all the issues in affirmative and the reason recorded are 'just and proper'. Regarding the age of the deceased, the Court relied on the Post-Mortem note and the inquest panchnama that supported the age of the deceased, and also found that he earned ₹200 per day from selling milk, amounting to ₹6,000 per month.The Court then held, “Hence, in view of the above observations, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. In fact, trial Court has considered all the relevant aspects and has taken into account documentary as well as oral evidence and passed the impugned judgment and award and hence, in my view, there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, which is absolutely in accordance with law.”The appeal was found to be meritless and was therefore, dismissed. The Court confirmed the judgement by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kutch -Bhuj. The Court then ordered to disburse the amount to respondent no. 2 (mother) deposited by the appellant with accrued interest within eight weeks from receipt of the order and to return the record and proceedings to the Trial Court. Case Title: Paschim Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs Mithabhai Nageshi Maheswari & Anr. Case Number: First Appeal No. 470 of 2012Click Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 92

Gujarat High Court Upholds Compensation To Kin Of 18-Yr-Old Who Died Due To Electrocution By Low-Hanging Live Wire

Lovina B Thakkar

Tags