Partly allowed

Mustt. Minara Begum and 4 Ors, v. the Assam State Electricity Board and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Sept 2019RFA/26/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a civil decree awarding Rs. 2,00,000 for electrocution death, the High Court held the quantum was arbitrary absent a clear negligence percentage. Modifying the decree, the Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 2,50,000, referencing the Appellate body's office memorandum, and ordered payment of the difference.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment modified by enhancing compensation from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 2,50,000; difference to be paid within three months without interest.

Mustt. Minara Begum and 4 Ors, Vs the Assam State… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010006362011

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : RFA 26/2011

¶5

1:MUSTT. MINARA BEGUM and 4 ORS, W/O LATE ABDUL LATIF LASKAR

¶6

2: RAHIMUN NESSA D/O LATE ABDUL LATIF LASKAR

¶7

3: MD. AKBAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE ABDUL LATIF LASKAR

¶8

4: MD. ANWAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE ABDUL LATIF LASKAR ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL. APPIN PART-I PEHER GAON P.O. RONGPAR P.S. KATLICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. APPELLANTS NO. 3 and 4 ARE MINORS and THEY ARE BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER MUSTT. MINARA BEGUM WHO IS APPELLANT NO. 1

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD and 3 ORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-1

¶11

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER A.S.E.B. PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-1 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER A.S.E.B. HAILAKANDI ELECTRICAL DIVISION P.O. and P.S. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

ASSAM.

¶14

4:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LALA ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION P.O. and P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.R DEWAN

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Date : 10-09-2019

¶21

Heard Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bhattacharyaa, learned standing counsel, APDCL.

¶22

This first appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Money Suit No.3/2009 whereby, the learned trial Court awarded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the plaintiffs.

¶23

The case of the plaintiff was that one Abdul Latif Laskar (since deceased), was the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiff Nos.2, 3, & 4. On 29.09.2008 at about 2.45 pm, while said Abdul Latif Laskar was proceeding towards Krishnanagar, he suddenly came in contact with a live electric wire which was lying on the road, as result of which, said Abdul Latif Laskar got electrocuted and died. It is stated that the electric wire was loose and it was detached because of rain and storm, which took place on the previous night and the death of the victim Abdul Latif Laskar was caused due to negligence of the defendant APDCL. Hence, the legal heirs of the Abdul Latif Laskar filed the civil suit seeking compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-.

¶24

The defendant electricity authority (APDCL) contested the suit by filing written statement, stating therein, that the snapping of the electric line because of the storm was an act of God and therefore, the defendants were not liable. It was

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

also stated that the deceased was also negligent and contributed to the accident, inasmuch as, he touched the electric line without taking proper care and caution, and therefore, no compensation could be granted for the death occurred due to the own negligence of the deceased. On the basis of the above pleadings, learned trial Court framed the following issues:

¶27

a. Whether the instant suit is maintainable in its present form and circumstances?

¶28

b. Whether there is any cause of action in the instant suit?

¶29

c. Whether the defendants are negligent and responsible for the incident?

¶30

d. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs & fifty thousand) as compensation from the defendants?

¶31

e. Whether the deceased Abdul Latif Laskar has got any contributory negligence for his death by electrocution?

¶32

f. To what relief or reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled to get under the law and equity?

¶33

Both the parties adduced evidence and upon hearing the parties, learned trial Court passed the impugned decree whereby a lump sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/was awarded in favour of the plaintiff/legal representatives of the deceased Abdul Latif Laskar as compensation.

¶34

Unsatisfied with the quantum of award made by the learned trial Court the plaintiffs have filed the appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Deka submits that the death of the victim Abdul Latif Laskar was caused due to negligence of the defendant and there was no evidence on record to attribute contributory negligence to the victim. However, learned trial court wrongly attributed contributory negligence to the victim and thereby fell in error. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court granted compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- without considering the evidence brought on record, more particularly, the dependency as well as the income etc of the victim and thereby failed to award just and reasonable compensation. Learned standing counsel for the APDCL submits that the learned trial Court having considered the evidence and materials brought on record rightly passed the decree awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, which does not require interference.

¶36

Page No.# 4/5

¶37

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant has bought to the notice of the Court, an Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, of the APDCL, wherein it was provided that in order to avoid litigation the APDCL shall pay compensation in case of death due to electrocution in the following rate,

¶38

up of 20 years of age – Rs. 1,50,000/-,

¶39

above 20 years and upto 55 years of age – 2,50,000/-

¶40

Above 50 years of age - Rs. 1,50,000/-

¶41

Having gone through the evidence brought on record, I find that the findings of the learned trial Court with regard to the contributory negligence cannot be faulted as the evidence on record shows that there was some amount of lack of care on the part of the deceased. However, it is also in the evidence, that rain and storm took place on the previous night and there was no evidence to show, that the defendants took due care and caution to ascertain as to whether there was any damage to the electric line. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court, that there was some amount of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the accident occurred due to negligence of the defendant, in my considered view, did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. However, while awarding a lumpsum compensation learned trial court does not appear to have taken into account the evidence brought on record with regard to the loss suffered by the plaintiffs. Though there may not be any specific formula or guidelines for calculating the compensation, in a case of present nature, learned trial Court ought to have followed certain accepted principle applied in other fields of tortuous liability. Though learned trial court held, that the deceased also contributed to the incident, learned trial Court did not decide as to what was the extent of contributory negligence, on the part of the victim so as ascertain the extent of liability of the defendants. Be that as it may, having regard to the evidence brought on record, in my considered view, the contributory negligence of the deceased on the facts and circumstances of the case could not be more than 20% to 30%. Therefore, the quantum of compensation fixed by the learned trial Court appears to have suffered from the vice arbitrariness and therefore, the impugned judgment with regard to the

¶42

Page No.# 5/5

¶43

quantum of compensation requires some modification.

¶44

Having regard to the evidence brought on record more particularly, the income of the deceased and the dependency factor and also the extent of contributory negligence, this court has is of the view, that the compensation amount could not have been less than Rs.2,50,000/-. It is also apparent that the office memorandum as indicated above makes the provision of a fixed amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- in case of death of a person within the age group of 20-55 years irrespective of fault. Therefore, having considered the evidence on record and also the office memorandum of the defendant, this Court is of the view that the quantum of compensation needs to be raised at least to an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. The decree shall be prepared accordingly.

¶45

It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the defendants that the defendants have already complied with the decree passed by the trial Court and paid the compensation, awarded by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the defendant shall pay only the enhanced amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is however, clarified that the enhanced amount of Rs.50,000/- as per modification in this judgment shall not carry any interest, provided the amount is paid within a period of 3 (three) months. The enhanced amount of compensation may be paid directly to the plaintiffs or by depositing the same with the learned trial Court. In case of failure to satisfy the decree as indicated above, the decree may be executed for recovery of the enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of decree.

¶46

The appeal stands partly allowed. Send back the LCR.

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Smita

¶49

Comparing Assistant

Mustt. Minara Begum and 4 Ors, v. the Assam State Electricity Board and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustt. Minara Begum and 4 Ors, v. the Assam State Electricity Board and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tilak Saikia and Anr. Vs Joyram Saikia and 5 Ors.

Purnendu Kr. Saha@ Purnendu Saha Vs Beni Bhusan Deb

Md. Alauddin Sheikh Vs Mustt Sahervan Bibi

Tota Mia and Anr. Vs Najiman Nessa and 5 Ors.

Goenka Enterprises Vs Rajendra Prasad Boara

Pabitra Mohan Paul Bhoumik Vs Monkumar Paul Bhoumik