RAJENDRA M. SAREEN
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
L. H. Of Decd. Odhavjibhai @ Odhabhai Gobarbhai Shiyal – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants – original appellants / defendants against the concurrent findings of the learned courts below arising out of the suit for compensation for the death of deceased Odhabhai Shiyal, who died due to electric shock.
2. Factual matrix of the case is as under:
2.1. The respondents - original plaintiffs are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Odhabhai Shiyal. The original plaintiff No.1 is the widow of the deceased, original plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased and plaintiff Nos.5 and 6 are parents of the deceased.
2.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are residing in a hut in their agricultural and electric pole is installed by the appellants near the house of the plaintiffs and electric line is passing through the agricultural field of the plaintiffs and for the said facility, the appellants Company has installed electric poles or and transformer and it is the duty of the appellant company to have regular maintenance, checking and take care of the electric line.
2.3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that earthing wire is installed from the top of the electric pole to the
Easwari Versus Parvathi and others
State of Haryana Versus Khalsa Motors Limited
C. Doddanarayana Reddy & Ors. Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy & Ors.
Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan (1999) 6 SCC 343
Ramanuja Naidu v. V. Kanniah Naidu (1996 3 SCC 392)
Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty (1996 6 SCC 166)
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitkibai Sopan Gujar & Ors.
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari
State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal
Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to substantial questions of law, and the High Court can....
Electricity providers have a high duty of care to maintain safe conditions; failure to do so results in presumed negligence and liability for damages.
The court established that procedural defects should not defeat a just cause, emphasizing the importance of negligence in determining liability for damages.
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse; a substantial question of law must be established for a second appeal under CPC.
Concurrent findings of fact can only be interfered with if they are found to be perverse or based on no evidence. High Court's jurisdiction in Second Appeal is limited to substantial questions of law....
The duty of care owed by the Electricity Board in hazardous activities and the application of the multiplier method for determining the quantum of compensation.
Death due to Negligence of Electricity Board – Liability to pay compensation - Responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.