Allowed

Geetanjali Rajput v. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2024FA/134/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a compensation award, the Division Bench reasoned the original award was too low. The Court recalculated damages based on the deceased's income, age, and dependents, ultimately increasing the total compensation awarded to the family.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased to Rs. 8,96,400/- with 6% simple interest; Rs. 2 lacs each for minor children in fixed deposit; balance to widow.

Geetanjali Rajput Vs Managing Director Chhattisgarh… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

First Appeal No. 134 of 2022

¶5

Geetanjali Rajput, W/o Late Ganesh Singh Rajput, aged about 30 years,

¶6

Shivesh Rajput, S/o Late Ganesh Singh Rajput, aged about 07 years (minor)

¶7

Vishesh Rajput, S/o Late Ganesh Singh Rajput, aged about 02 years (minor) Petitioners No. 2 & 3 being represented through mother and natural guardian Geetanjali Rajput,

¶8

All R/o Risda, Post-Muktaraja, P.S. Baradwar, Tahsil-Sakit, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (CG)

¶9

---- Appellants/plaintiffs

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Behind Rajkumar College, Danganiya, Raipur (CG)

¶12

Chief Engineer, Bilaspur Region, Chhattisgarh Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, Tifra, Bilaspur, Tah. & Dist. Bilaspur (CG)

¶13

Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, Sakti, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (CG)

¶14

Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG)

¶15

¶16

Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, Baradwar, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG)

¶17

Manoj Yadav, S/o Shri Mathura Yadav, aged about 35 years, R/o Risda, Muktaraja, P.S. Baradwar, Tah. Sakti, Distt. JanjgirChampa (CG)

¶18

Mahendra Yadav, S/o Shri Puni Ram Yadav, aged about 26 years, R/o Risda, Muktaraja, P.S. Baradwar, Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG)

¶19

Chief Electricity Inspector, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Fawwara Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG)

¶20

---- Respondents/Defendants

¶21

For Appellants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Adv. on behalf of Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate. For Respondent No. 6 & 7 : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate.

¶22

Division Bench

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, J

¶24

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

¶25

JUDGMENT ON BOARD

¶26

(Passed on 15-06-2024)

¶27

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J

¶28

The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 3006-2017 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No.14-B/2016 wherein a compensation for

¶29

¶30

electrocution death to the plaintiffs has been awarded to the extent of Rs.3.80 lacs with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till payment. The plaintiffs, which include the widow of deceased Ganesh Singh Rajput and two minor children, have preferred this appeal.

¶31

Since the learned trial Court has already held the strict vicarious liability to be joint and several that of the Electricity Board and respondents No. 6 & 7, the challenge in this appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs is to the quantum of award and hence we would proceed to decide only the quantum of compensation.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the wife in her statement has categorically stated that the deceased, who was 32 years of age, was earning Rs.150/- per day i.e. Rs.4,500/per month and the wife as well as children were dependent upon him. Age of the deceased is not disputed by the respondents. He further submits that compensation of Rs.3.80 lacs is too meager and the learned trial Court has failed to consider the relevant aspects of the matter which would lead to grant just compensation.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned judgment and decree submit that the learned trial Court having taken into account all the relevant aspects of the matter has awarded just and reasonable compensation which needs no interference by this Court.

¶34

We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

¶35

¶36

perused the material available on record.

¶37

In her statement, the widow has categorically stated that the deceased Ganesh Singh Rajput was aged about 32 years and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The incident happened on 12.01.2014. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the minimum income which could be reckoned, can be assessed at Rs.4,500/-, which too appears to be a little on the lower side, however, since the statement has been made by the widow that her husband was earning Rs.4,500/- per month, we accept the same taking into account the inflation and cost of living prevailing in the society as also the minimum wages prevalent at that time. Consequently, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month.

¶38

In order to assess the damages, we would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , and applying the principle laid down in the said matter, an addition of 40% of the established income would warrant as the deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of incident. We would also rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e. 32 years, future prospects would be considered at 40% of the salary and since there were three dependents, deduction would be one third towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Taking into account the age of the

¶39

¶40

deceased, the applicable multiplier would be 16. Thus, we calculate the compensation as under:

¶41

S.No.	Head	Calculation
01.	Income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month	Rs. 4,500 x 12 = 54,000/- p.a.
02.	40% of (01) above to be added as future prospects	Rs. 21,600/-
	S.No. 01 + 02	Rs.75,600/-
03.	One third deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.	Rs.25,200/-
	(Rs.75,600 - Rs.25,200)	Rs. 50,400/-
04.	Compensation after multiplier of 16 is applied	Rs.50,400 x 16 = Rs.8,06,400/-
05.	Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-
06.	Consortium to widow	Rs.40,000/-
07.	Funeral and ritual expenses after death of the deceased	Rs.35,000/-
	Total Compensation (S.No. 4+5+6+7)	Rs. 8,96,400/-

¶42

Thus, the appellants/plaintiffs are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,96,400/- with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of death till its payment. The amount of Rs.3.80 lacs along with interest already paid to the plaintiffs shall be adjusted accordingly. Further, out of the total remaining amount, Rs.2 lacs each shall be kept in the fixed deposit in the name of minor children i.e. appellants No. 2 & 3 in any nationalized bank till the date of their attaining the age of majority and the rest of the amount shall be paid to the widow/appellant No.1.

¶43

¶44

In the result, the appeal stands allowed with modification in the impugned judgment and decree to the above extent. No order as to costs. A decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶45

Sd/ Sd/ (Goutam Bhaduri) (Rajani Dubey) Judge Judge

¶46

Khan

Geetanjali Rajput v. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetanjali Rajput v. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dugdhe Ram Sahu Vs Ramesh Jaghav

Afrin Das Vs Alok Das

Smt. Anupma Painkra Vs Maheshwar Painkra

Smt. Sangeeta Sahu Vs Ishwar Sahu

M/S N. and D. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt. Amrit Shukla

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh