Point of Law:
Even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Khambhalia in Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1989 awarding compensation of Rs. 8,20,160/- to the original plaintiff-respondent herein, the Appellant, which was earlier known as G.E.B, and is now known as Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, has filed this Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The brief facts of the Civil Suit is that the deceased was going to his field for round as a daily routine in the morning at 8.00 a.m., on the fateful day, a live electric wire was lying on the ground and due to electrocution, he died. The heirs of the deceased Mr. Lala Jeram filed Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1989, inter alia, narrating various aspects and claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakh with interest from the Appellant herein.

3. During the course of proceedings in trial Court, both the sides led evidence and after hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court awarded Rs.8,20,160/as compensation with interest at the rate of 15% thereof.

4. On the basis of the averments made, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues in the matter:

(1) Whether plaintiffs proved that they are the heirs and defendants of deceased Lala Jeram?

(2) Whether plaintiffs prove that deceased Lalabhai Jerambhai died due to the electric shock from the conductor lying on the earth snaped from the 11 K.V. Electric line of the defendant – G.E.Board near Nandana – Bhopalka Road?

(3) Whether plaintiffs proved that the employees or the G.E.Board were negligent in maintaining of the above electric line?

(4) Whether defendants prove that deceased Lalabhai Jerambhai was liable for his death for his contributory negligence?

(5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the compensation? If yes, what would be the just and reasonable amount for the same?

(6) To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled to?

(7) What order and decree?

5. On the basis of the evidences lead and the submissions on behalf of both the sides, ultimately the issues have been answered in the following manner by the trial Court:

(1) In the affirmative

(2) In the affirmative.

(3) In the affirmative.

(4) In the Negative.

(5) In the affirmative. Rs.8,20,160/-

(6) As per Order.

(7) As per final order.

6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the Appellant preferred this Appeal.

7. The appellant contended that the wire was not loose on the previous day and it was found lying on the earth next day and as such the principle of “Res ipsa Lequitar” does not apply to the facts of this case. It is also contended that the defendant has raised the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the learned trial Court has committed error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. It is also contended that the trial Court has not properly considered the fact that the deceased was owing property and the said property was a joint family property and elder brothers of the deceased were managing the property. According to the appellant, cost of cultivation and the income of the deceased was not properly considered by the trial Court and considering the agricultural land, the cost would be the same even if the deceased was alive and there will be no difference even after the death of the deceased. It is also contended that there is no reliable source regarding the income of the deceased. It is also contended that without any basis of the actual income of the deceased, the learned trial Court has failed in appreciating this fact and amount of compensation awarded is erroneous. It is also contended that it is specific stand of the Appellant herein that the appellant is not responsible and the deceased has died due to his own negligence.

7.1 It is also contended that considering the factual aspect, the dependency ought to have been considered at 1/4th of the total income and his income, as per 1/4th of the total income, comes to Rs.9,500/. Acco