JUDGMENT

1. By way of filing present First Appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”), the appellant – Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd (in short “the PGVCL”) challenges judgment and decree dated 31.8.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Veraval, whereby the learned trial Court has partly decreed Special Civil Suit No.16 of 2004 and directed the PGVCL to pay Rs.3,41,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the deceased Rambhai Ramsibhai had a boring machine and earned Rs. 5000/- per month. On 6/6/2001, deceased Rambhai Ramsibhai's machine was running in the Umbri border of Sutrapada taluka, and the deceased was walking there from Sutrapada. It was raining lightly, on the border of Vaniyavav village, near the land of Aher Hajabhai Veerabhai, while he was moving forward on the road, due to some technical fault in the GEB transformer near the road, deceased Rambhai Ramsibhai got electrocuted. The deceased was brought to the Primary Health Center, Sutrapada and was declared dead.

3.1 Claiming the aforesaid incident as absolute negligency on the part of the PGVCL, the plaintiffs have prayed for compensation for her husband to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest.

3.2 The defendant PGVCL having been served, appeared through learned advocate and mainly submitted that the incident took place due to sole negligency of the deceased. It is the deceased who is required to take necessary care to avoid the mishap. Rest of the pleadings are also denied by the PGVCL.

3.3 The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit to the aforesaid extent.

3.4 Being aggrieved, the PGVCL has preferred present First Appeal.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant / defendant would submit that on the date of the incident, there was a drizzle and in the meanwhile, the deceased went to join transformer fuse illegally and received electrocution and died and therefore, it is the case of self-negligency which resulted into electrocution and thus, the PGVCL is not required to pay any compensation. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has erred in fastening the liability upon the PGVCL though the deceased died due to his self-negligency. He would further submit that it is a clear case where deceased was negligent and had he taken proper care, the mishap would have been avoided and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, he would submit that the learned trial Court has committed serious error in deciding the issue of negligence against the PGVCL. He would further submit that the learned trial Court made improper calculation in grating compensation and even the income of the deceased assessed by the learned trial Court is on the higher side so also 7% interested granted by the learned trial Court is on higher side. Upon above submissions, he prays to allow this First Appeal.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate for the original claimants referring to para 13 of the impugned judgment would submit that report at Exh.38 by the Deputy Engineer itself sufficiently established that the deceased died due to injury having been received from the current passing through the transformer. He would further submit that the wires and the running of electric