2022 Supreme(Guj) 1647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.
Sanjay Kalubhai Makwana - Appellant
Vs.
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. & others - Respondent
First Appeal No. 3575 of 2013
Decided On : 09-12-2022
Subject
Tort Law - NEGLIGENCE
Headnote
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Arbitrary and Perverse – Awarding Compensation – Captioned appeal has been filed by appellant praying for quashing and setting aside judgment and decree by learned Principal Senior Civil against claim appellant been awarded – Held, Compensation, treating would come learned advocate has stated before this Court that total amount of compensation – Learned Judge was not right in assessing disability of appellant awarding compensation to tune appellant would be entitled for compensation of decree passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Special Civil Suit hereby modified and it is declared that appellant would be entitled for additional compensation – Appeal stands allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr AR Thacker , Shivang A Thacker
For the Respondent: Mr Premal R Joshi
JUDGMENT :
1. The captioned appeal has been filed by the appellant praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2013 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Special Civil Suit no.72 of 2008 whereby, against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- of the appellant, Rs.5,76,635/- has been awarded. The appellant further prays that the appellant is entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.4,23,365/- together with interest at the rate of 9% instead of 6% for the entire amount.
2. Facts, in nutshell, are that:
2.1. The appellant was employed by the contractor i.e. respondent no.3 (who is sought to be deleted vide order dated 08.11.2022), to work for respondent nos.1 and 2. The unfortunate incident took place on 24.07.2007, when the appellant sustained electrocution and as a result whereof, both the arms of the appellant were amputated.
2.2. It so happened that on 24.07.2007, electric connection of consumer Dhanjibhai Ranchodbhai Domadiya got disconnected owing to transformer having been burnt, which required its replacement. At the instance of officers of the respondent no.1, the transformer was to be replaced by the appellant and another labor. The assistant lineman of the respondent nos.1 and 2 were present at the office and the officers were under an obligation to switch off the electric supply during the process of repairing and replacement. The officers were informed to switch off the electric connection and accordingly, 11 KVA feeder of Aalidhra was switched off. It was informed that the line is clear; as a result whereof, the appellant and one another, started the work of replacement. The transformer was replaced; however, what was left was raising of the D.O. fuse and when the appellant was completing the said work, that the officer of the respondent nos.1 and 2, exhibiting negligence, started the electric supply as a result whereof, the appellant was electrocuted and got injured. The appellant was thereafter, shifted to the hospital of Medarda from which, he was referred to the Civil Hospital, Junagadh. As advised, the appellant was then shifted to a private hospital. The appellant took treatment for around 8 to 10 days. As the situation went beyond control, that a decision was taken of amputing both the arms of the appellant and it is thereafter that the appellant took treatment for almost two months and had undergone as many as four operations.
2.3 At the time of the incident, the age of the appellant was 26 years. The appellant filed the suit being Special Civil Suit no.72 of 2008 seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.12,88,000/- under different heads namely:-
| i | The income of Rs.36,000/- (annual) and the future income of Rs.6,000/- | Rs.7,20,000/- |
| ii | Pain, shock and suffering and mental agony and the future enjoyment | Rs.50,000/ |
| iii | Fees towards operation, plaster, medicines and hospital expenditure so also the special diet | Rs.3,13,000/- |
| iv | Transportation charges | Rs.5000/- |
| v | Daily attendant charges | Rs.2,00,000/- |
|
| Total compensation prayed for | Rs.12,88,000/ |
The appellant thereafter, reduced the compensation from Rs.12,88,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. The suit was tried and the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh, partly allowed the suit against the defendant nos.1 and 2. Whereas, the suit against defendant no.3 was rejected. The learned Judge ordered that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation for an amount of Rs.5,76,635/- (Rupees Five Lacs Seventy Six thousand Six hundred thirty five only) from the defendants at the rate of 6% interest. The defendants were also directed to pay the compensation accordingly. Being partly aggrieved, that the appellant has preferred the captioned appeal.
3. Mr.Shivang Thacker, learned advocate appearing for the appellant took this Court to the judgment dated 18.03.2013. It is