Partly allowed

Smt. Babudi Devi W/O Late Roshan Lal, v. Assistant Engineer O and M

Rajasthan HC1 May 2025CFA/826/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against decree in a fatal electrocution damages suit. Court enhanced compensation from Rs.13,96,780/- to Rs.18,01,008/-, computing income over 30 days with 40% future prospects and awarding loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- per claimant, relying on Supreme Court precedents on conventional heads.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.18,01,008/- with 9% interest, earlier payments adjusted; balance payable to appellants.

Smt. Babudi Devi W/O Late Roshan Lal, Vs Assistant… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:18389]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 826/2023

¶4

Smt. Babudi Devi W/o Late Roshan Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Ward Number 11, Rajpura Usta, Shyampura Kacholiya Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.

¶5

Payal D/o Late Roshan Lal, Aged About 7 Years, (Minor Through Mother Smt Babudi Devi) Resident Of Ward Number 11, Rajpura Usta, Shyampura Kacholiya Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.

¶6

Anushka D/o Late Roshan Lal, Aged About 5 Years, (Minor Through Mother Smt Babudi Devi) Resident Of Ward Number 11, Rajpura Usta, Shyampura Kacholiya Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.

¶7

Narendra Son Of Late Roshan Lal, Aged About 3 Years, (Minor Through Mother Smt Babudi Devi) Resident Of Ward Number 11, Rajpura Usta, Shyampura Kacholiya Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.

¶8

Kishan Lal Gurjar Son Of Shri Manglaram, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Ward Number 11, Rajpura Usta, Shyampura Kacholiya Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.

¶9

Kamla W/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Ward Number 11, Rajpura Usta, Shyampura Kacholiya Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.

¶10

----Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Assistant Engineer O & M, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.. Bassi, District Jaipur.

¶13

Superintendent Engineer (O & M), Gramin, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Ram Mandir Road, Power House, Jaipur.

¶14

Chairman, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma,Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sarvesh Jain,Advocate

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

01/05/2025

[2025:RJ-JP:18389]

[CFA-826/2023]

(2 of 4)

The present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiffsappellants (for short ‘the appellants’) against the impugned judgment & decree dt.27.03.2023 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, No.2, Jaipur Metro-I, in Civil Suit No.42/2020 by which the suit for damages filed by the plaintiffs under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855 was partly decreed and a sum of Rs.13,96,780/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit has been awarded as compensation.

¶23

The appellants instituted a suit for damages on account of death of one Roshan Lal, who died on 15.09.2019, due to electrocution.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that at the time of alleged incident, the deceased was 25 years of age, working as labour in the RIICo Industry Factory & he was also an agriculturist. Counsel further contends that ld. Trial Court, has wrongly considered the income of the deceased @ Rs.225/- per day for 26-days, whereas the income of the deceased should have been assessed @ Rs.225/- per day for 30-days. Counsel contends that the ld. Trial Court has wrongly awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- per claimant, hence, the judgment & decree of the ld. Trial Court may be modified.

¶25

In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanuram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and in New India Assurance Company & Others Vs. Somwati & Others, MANU/SC/0674/2020, wherein reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’ and

[2025:RJ-JP:18389]

[CFA-826/2023]

(3 of 4)

‘funeral expenses’ held to be Rs.15,000/-, 40,000/- each claimant & Rs.15,000/- respectively. The parents, wife and children of the deceased are also entitled to get the award under the head of ‘loss of consortium’.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentsdefendants has opposed the submissions made herein-above and submitted that the finding of the ld. Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality & prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made at bar, gone through the judgment & decree passed by ld. Trial Court & perused the judgments cited herein above.

¶32

It is an admitted position that the appellants failed to adduce the cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/per month but the ld. Trial Court erred in decreed the lump sum amount of Rs.13,96,780/- as compensation.

¶33

Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Laxmidhar Nayak & Others Vs. Jugalkishore & Others, 2018 (1) R.A.R. 45 S.C . and in Laxmidevi & Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Others, 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 S.C., has also held that the wages/income of the deceased should be calculated for 30-days.

¶34

The ld. Trial Court had already awarded Rs.9,47,700/towards ‘loss of income’, Rs.3,79,080/- towards future prospects, Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶35

In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Laxmidhar Nayak (supra), Laxmidevi (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Supra) & Somwati (supra), the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,31,008/towards ‘loss of income’ includes 40% future prospects by calculating it for 30-days, Rs.40,000/- each claimant towards ‘loss of consortium’,

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:18389]

[CFA-826/2023]

Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ & Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’.

¶40

On the basis of the aforesaid facts & analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to the appellants under the aforesaid heads ought to have been as under:-

¶41

Loss of Income =Rs.15,31,008/- (6750x12+40% -1/4thx18) 3. Loss of consortium =Rs.2,40,000/-(Rs.40,000/-x6) 4. Loss of Estate =Rs.15,000/5. Funeral Expenses =Rs.15,000/-

¶42

Total Rs.18,01,008/-

¶43

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned award dated 27.03.2023 is liable to be modified as above and the appellants are entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.18,01,008/- instead of Rs.13,96,780/- alongwith interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition as per the terms of ld. trial Court. The compensation amount received by the appellants in pursuant to the award dt.27.03.2023 passed by ld. Trial Court shall be adjusted in the present judgment & award and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount.

¶44

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶45

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶46

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J.

¶47

ASHOK/

Smt. Babudi Devi W/O Late Roshan Lal, v. Assistant Engineer O and M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Babudi Devi W/O Late Roshan Lal, v. Assistant Engineer O and M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maithli Sharan Sharma S/O Late Sh. Bhanwarlal Sharma, Vs Ashok Vihar Vikas Samiti through Its President Niranjan Lal Soni S/O Nathuram Soni

Rajasthan Sarvodaya Sansthan Vs Mr. Manoj Kumar

R S R T C and Anr. Vs Brij Raj Singh

Sameer Jain Vs Municipal Corporation

Gokul Mehra S/O Shri Jugal Kishor Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ramjilal S/O Late Panna, Vs Raghuveer S/O Ramkhiladi