Gujarat HC Upholds Compensation To Kin Of 18-Yr-Old Who Died Due To Electrocution By Low-Hanging Live Wire
The Gujarat Excessive Courtroom upheld a trial court docket order granting over Rs. 6 Lakh compensation to the mom of an 18-year-old boy who died as a consequence of electrocution attributable to low-hanging reside electrical wires which received entangled with timber below which the deceased was standing to chop grass for grazing cattle.
Justice Hemant Prachchhak in his order noticed:
“It’s applicable to notice herein that it’s the responsibility of the electrical board to see that the electrical wires don’t contact the timber and for that the board has to applicable steps. In current case, as a consequence of negligence on the a part of the board, the son of respondent No.2 died premature. Additional, from the document it establishes that the wires have been hanging and bent from the centre and had come close to to the bottom and similar have been touching the timber. In view of the above dialogue, I’m in full settlement with the judgment and award handed by the trial Courtroom. I don’t discover any justifiable purpose to entertain current enchantment.”
The incident passed off on March 2008 at round 5:00 pm whereby the deceased who was standing beneath the tress and reducing crops for grazing cattle received electrocuted as a consequence of electrical line passing by means of the timber and subsequently died. Following the incident, the mother and father of the deceased filed a go well with for restoration. The Trial Courtroom had ordered Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. (appellant) to pay ₹6,25,000 together with curiosity of 9%. Towards this the board moved the excessive court docket in enchantment.
The advocate for the appellant argued that the Trial Courtroom handed the judgement with out correctly verifying the info or contemplating the submissions made. He contended there was no negligence on appellant’s half and the deceased ought to have been “fairly vigilant whereas coming nearer to the reside electrical wires and must have been conscious of possible hazard”.
He additional contended that Trial Courtroom erred in granting a big compensation regardless of contributory negligence.
Moreover, he argued that the Courtroom wrongly concluded that the deceased was incomes ₹4,500 month-to-month and was 18-years outdated, although his beginning date was not registered with Panchayat division and making use of a multiplied of 18 for compensation evaluation was, not in consonance with legislation. On these grounds, the Counsel urged the Courtroom to put aside the judgement of the Path Courtroom.
The counsel showing for respondent no. 2 (father of the deceased) submitted that the deceased’s father handed away in the course of the enchantment, subsequently, the mom is now the only respondent. The counsel then argued that the Trial Courtroom rightly held the appellant negligent after inspecting in depth proof and listening to each the edges. Additional, he submitted that the mentioned truth was totally supported by impartial witnesses and the documentary proof positioned on document. He then requested the Courtroom to dismiss the current enchantment.
The Courtroom famous that the Trial Courtroom, after totally inspecting the paperwork answered all the problems in affirmative and the rationale recorded are ‘simply and correct’. Relating to the age of the deceased, the Courtroom relied on the Submit-Mortem notice and the inquest panchnama that supported the age of the deceased, and in addition discovered that he earned ₹200 per day from promoting milk, amounting to ₹6,000 monthly.
The Courtroom then held, “Therefore, in view of the above observations, this Courtroom is of the opinion that the trial Courtroom has not dedicated any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. The truth is, trial Courtroom has thought of all of the related elements and has taken into consideration documentary in addition to oral proof and handed the impugned judgment and award and therefore, for my part, there is no such thing as a have to intervene within the impugned judgment and order handed by the trial Courtroom, which is totally in accordance with legislation.”
The enchantment was discovered to be meritless and was subsequently, dismissed. The Courtroom confirmed the judgement by the Principal Senior Civil Decide, Kutch -Bhuj. The Courtroom then ordered to disburse the quantity to respondent no. 2 (mom) deposited by the appellant with accrued curiosity inside eight weeks from receipt of the order and to return the document and proceedings to the Trial Courtroom.
Case Title: Paschim Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs Mithabhai Nageshi Maheswari & Anr.
Case Quantity: First Attraction No. 470 of 2012
