Negligence by power suppliers engages strict liability, mandating adequate compensation for severe injuries, especially when permanent disability affects the victim's quality of life.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 at the instance of the appellant – original plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned 7^th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar (herein after referred to as “the trial court”) in Special Civil Suit No. 120 of 2000, whereby, the learned Judge partly allowed the suit filed by the appellant and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-.

2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, on 27.6.1998, when the appellant Lasiben was working in the farm, at that time, all of a sudden, the electric live wire fell on the one hand of Lasiben and so she was trying to remove said wire by another hand and as a result of that, she got injury and electric shock and she became unconscious. Therefore, she was admitted in hospital at Mahuva. That, thereafter, she was transferred to Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad as the injury was serious in nature. That, she had taken treatment as an indoor patient for a period of one month and because of the said injury and treatment taken by her in Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad the doctor had operated and both the hands of Lasiben were amputated from elbow of both the hands, and therefore, because of the negligence on the part of the employees of the respondent-company, she has to suffer a serious and permanent injury, and therefore, she filed a special civil suit for compensation before the 7^th Additional Senior Civil Judge at Bhavnagar.

2.1 That, as the appellant was only aged 12 years at the time of incident, therefore, her father Unadbhai through his advocate had issued legal notice to the respondents seeking compensation, which was replied by the respondent and had denied all the allegations and also denied their liability. That, thereafter the appellant had preferred the aforesaid suit before the trial court seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- and thereafter, the appellant has enhanced he amount of compensation from Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-. That, after service of summons, the respondents had filed their written at Exh.-6 denying all the allegations made in the plaint and they had also denied their liability to pay compensation.

2.2 That, after considering the pleadings of both the sides, the trial court had framed the following issues vide Exh.-7 :

(1) Whether plaintiff proves that the injuries were caused on account of negligence & willful default on the part of the employee of the defendant?

(2) Whether the defendant proves that there was no negligence on the part of defendant?

(3) Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled to get compensation?

(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to get interest? If yes, at what rate?

(5) What compensation should be awarded to the plaintiff?

(6) What order and decree?

2.3 That, the issues were replied by the trial court in para-7. To prove the case, appellant had produced oral evidence, whereby, the appellant herself had deposed at Exh.-42 and one Sonba w/o Gillabhai had deposed at Exh.-76 and also produced documentary evidence vide Exh.-22 to 24 and vide Exh.-46 to 68, whereas, the respondent had produced documentary evidence vide Exh.-86 to 95 and had examined Mr. Sunilbhai Ramalbhaya vide Exh.-85. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the sides, the trial court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2007. The break-up of the compensation awarded is as under :