Employer's vicarious liability for the acts of their servant, application of principles for computation of compensation from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and fairness of the awarded compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant Civil Ist Appeal has been filed by the appellants herein against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2019 (for short “impugned judgment and decree”) passed by the court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag (for short “the trial court”) in case titled as “Mohammad Amin Bhat vs. State of J&K & Ors”.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant appeal would reveal that the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein filed a suit as an indigent person praying for grant of compensation therein to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lacs) from the defendants/appellants and proforma respondents herein on account of injuries sustained by him during electrocution caused by negligence of the defendants/appellants herein. The defendants/appellants herein filed their response to the suit whereafter the trial court framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the plaintiff was engaged as daily rated worker by the defendant? (OPP)

(ii) Whether the plaintiff lost his right hand/arm, while fixing H.T. Electric line at Malikgund, Siligam due to electrocution? (OPP)

(iii) In case issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, whether the accident was caused due to the negligence of the department? (OPP)

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation, if so, what would be the quantum of compensation? (OPP)

(v) Whether the plaintiff got electrocuted because of his own negligence, as such is not entitled to any compensation? (OPP)

(vi) Relief.

3. The plaintiff/respondent 1 herein besides appearing himself in the witness box as his own witness examined five witnesses, namely, Mohammad Hussain Bhat, Mohammad Amin Bhat, Ghulam Rasool Bhat, Ghulam Rasool Tantray and Dr. Younis Kamal whereas the defendants/appellants herein examined one Sajad Hussain Gatoo, Ghulam Mohammad Raina and Mushtaq Ahmad as their witnesses being the officials of the department.

4. The trial court after conducting trial of the suit and considering the matter in its entirety proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree holding the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein entitled to the compensation of Rs.22,20,000/- payable by the defendants/appellants herein along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the suit till the payment of the decretal amount, however, with the condition that the decretal amount be paid through the trial court, so that the requisite court fee is charged before making payment to the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein, owing to the reason that the suit had been permitted to be instituted by the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein as an indigent person.

5. The appellants herein have challenged the impugned judgment and decree on the grounds urged in the memo of appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Perusal of the record would tend to show that the plaintiff/respondent 1 had averred in the suit that on 14.08.2013 he got electrocuted due to the negligence of the defendants 6 to 10 in the suit being proforma respondents herein while being ordered to set right high tension electric line at Malikgund Siligam, Tehsil Pahalgam by assuring him that the power supply would be stopped during his working on the high tension line and that while undertaking repair of the said high tension line, the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein suffered severe electric shock upon coming into contact with the said high tension electric line and sustained serious injuries resulting into loss of his right hand and severe damage to his left hand rendering him permanently disabled.

The plaintiff/respondent 1 herein also averred in the suit that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month privately while as an electric fitter after his job hours with the defendants/appellants herein drawing Rs.5,000/- per month from the department of the defendants/appellants herein and, as such, would have been regularized while working with them being a matriculate and also promoted to the post of Inspector, however, on account of the disability suffered became un