The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to modify the lower court's decision on compensation based on the evidence presented and the application of legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Jayesh Dave for the appellants and learned Advocate Ms.R V Acharya for respondent Board in First Appeal No.2161 of 2002 and learned Advocate Ms.R V Acharya for the appellant Board and learned Advocate Mr.Jayesh Dave appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Yash Mohta for the respondents in First Appeal No.139 of 2003.

2. The appeals call into question the common judgement and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Anjar-Kutch dated 12.2.2002 in Special Civil Suit No.18 of 1999 and whereas, both the appeals are heard together by this Court.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeals being that the Special Civil Suit No.18 of 1999 had been filed by the original plaintiffs – appellants of First Appeal No.2161 of 2002 inter alia for compensation/damage of Rs.9,00,000/- from the defendant Board – respondent herein, in connection with the demise of the husband of the appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 to 8 on account of suffering electric shock. The defendant, at the relevant point of time, was the Electricity Board responsible for supplying electricity to the entire State of Gujarat.

3.1. The case of the original plaintiffs being that on the faithful day i.e. on 29.6.1998, the husband of the plaintiff No.1 Mr.Gani Fakirmamad Sameja had gone to the terrace of his home and he came in contact with a live wires and whereas upon shouting for help, the plaintiff No.1 had also rushed to the spot and in trying to save her husband, she had also sustained injuries. Both the plaintiff No.1 and her husband were taken to the hospital, where the husband of the plaintiff No.1was declared dead, whereas the plaintiff No.1 was given treatment for electric shock. It was the case of the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 had expired on account of the negligence of the original defendant, more particularly according to the plaintiffs, her late husband of the original plaintiff had died on account of receiving electric shock from the electric line passing over the terrace of their home, which electric shock was on account of lack of maintenance by the defendant. It appears that the plaintiffs’ side had relied upon the testimonies of plaintiff No.1 Kajuben @ Sherbanu at Exh.46, of one Sharifaben, who was neighbour of the plaintiffs at Exh.51, and of one Kiritbhai Sampat at Exh.52, who was the employer of the deceased husband of the plaintiff No.1. The defendant’s side had relied upon the testimonies of one Arvind Kumar Kalavadiya, who was working as Deputy Engineer with the Gujarat Electricity Board at Exh.58, of one Kasigar Gusai, who was working as Line Inspector with GEB at Exh.62 and testimony of one Mavjibhai Suvera, who was working as an Assistant Lineman with the defendant Board at Exh.61.

3.2. The learned Trial Court, after having considered the testimonies of the witnesses named herein above, and also considering the panchnama, which had been recorded by the police during the course of investigation into the accidental death of the husband of the plaintiff No.1, had come to a conclusion that the death of the husband of the plaintiff No.1 had occurred on account of electric shock, since he came into contact with a live wire. The learned Trial Court had, thereafter, applying formula as applicable in Motor Accident Claim Cases, had awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the plaintiffs.

3.3. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved by non-grant of a total amount of damages as claimed i.e. Rs.9,00,000/-, have challenged the impugned judgement and order by way of filing First Appeal No.2161 of 2002, whereas the defendant, being aggrieved by the findings that the death of the husband of the plaintiff No.1 was on account of electric shock and consequent award of damages, has challenged the same judgement and order vide First Appeal No.139 of 2003.

4. Learned Advocate Mr.Jayesh Dave appearing on behalf of