JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal has been preferred by erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board against the judgment and decree dated 21.6.1997 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 133/1992 by the learned Third Joint Civil Judge (SD), Junagadh by which the present appellant has been directed to pay the compensation of Rs.7,27,000/- with interest at 15% per annum with costs.

2. The appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is contrary to the law, facts and evidence on record. It is also contended that the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that admittedly the wire was not in broken condition and therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the appellant board. It is also contended that the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the plaintiff himself had tried to touch the electric wire and therefore, due to his own negligence the aforesaid incident occurred. It is further contended that even nature of injuries throw the light on truth that aforesaid incident had occurred while plaintiff was trying to touch the electric wire.. It is also contended that the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that electric current had passed through the palm of both the hands of the plaintiff which shows that he himself had tried to hold the wire, which has resulted into unfortunate incident. According to the appellant-original defendant, as per the admission of the plaintiff himself, the wire was passing at the distance of 8 ft. from the terrace wall and therefore, also defendant cannot be held liable for the aforesaid incident.

2.1 It is also contended that the learned trial Court has committed error in awarding the compensation amount and has failed to take into consideration the fact that at the time of incident the plaintiff was studying in Standard VIII and looking to the tender age of the plaintiff, the compensation granted is absolutely on very higher side. It is also contended that the learned trial Court has materially erred in awarding Rs.10,000/- towards the medical treatment since no reliable cogent evidence was ever produced by the plaintiff as well as erred in awarding Rs.10,000/- towards transporation without any documentary evidence thereof. It is further contended that the award of Rs.10,000/- toward special diet is also without any evidence on record and the amount of Rs.4,22,000/- towards loss of earning is also without any basis. It is further held that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities, pain, shock and sufferings and accepting the yearly loss of Rs.24,000/- is also not proper on the part of the learned trial Court. It is also contended that the learned trial Court has erred in not deducting amount towards personal expenses of the plaintiff and has also erred in granting Rs.1,25,000/- towards attendants expenses for future. It is alleged that appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court is erroneous and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree be setaside.

3. Heard Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the appellant through videoconferencing. None has appeared for respondent original plaintiff.

4. Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the Memo and she has submitted that the case of electrocution of the plaintiff who was minor and as per the evidence made available by the defendant appellant, the incident has happened due to negligence on the part of the plaintiff. She has also contended that considering the deposition of eyewitness as well as the panchnama, it clearly appears that the plaintiff has touched the electric wire passing over the terrace and due to his negligence he was electrocuted and his hands were amputated. She has also submitted that even if it is presumed that there was some negligence on the part of the defendant in maintaining the wire in that