IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901 WRIT PETITION NO. 8892 OF 2017 Namdeo Shankar Mule VERSUS The Maharashtra State Electricity Board Now Maharashtra State Electricity Distri Co Ltd And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok R. Tapse h/f Mr. Suryawanshi Prashant D. Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. A. S. Shelke ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7367 OF 2026 IN WP/8892/2017 ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : August 25, 2026 ORAL ORDER : 1. The present petition is filed to assail the award dated 20/09/2016 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in Application No.43 of 2016. The daughter of the petitioners died due to electrocution on 05/10/2013. The petitioners approached the Lok Adalat seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.8,02,000/-. The Permanent Lok Adalat found that the respondents were responsible for the unfortunate incident and held the respondents liable to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakh to the petitioners by placing reliance on Circular No.192 dated 20/11/2008. Apart from this, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection of the daughter. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. Page 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:38663 901 WP 8892-2017 2. While issuing notice, vide order dated 04/09/2017, this Court had expressed that the compensation awarded towards loss of income was proper and did not warrant any interference. Notice was issued on the limited ground with respect to compensation under non-pecuniary heads. The petitioners have filed Civil Application No.7367 of 2026 seeking recall of the said order, which foreclosed their right to assail the compensation awarded under pecuniary heads. The learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that the yardstick applicable for determining compensation in Motor Accident cases should be applied and the multiplier method should be adopted. Application is filed to seek enhancement of compensation awarded against monetary heads. 3. The learned Advocate for the respondents opposed the application as well as the petition on merits. He placed reliance on a recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Rekha, 2026 INSC 847, to contend that the parameters for determination of compensation under Motor Accident cases are not applicable to cases of accidental deaths due to electrocution. Reference is made to paragraph No.15 of the Judgment, which reads as under : Page 2 of 5 901 WP 8892-2017 “15. On the question of yardstick of compensation, we find this Court to have observed in a two-Judge Bench decision in Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., that the multiplier method cannot be applied to determine compensation in cases of electrocution. Since the calculation paradigm as provided for in connection with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is dependent on the multiplier, the scenario thereunder could not have been applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution cases, as done by the High Court in the impugned judgment. It is a matter of law that the Electricity Act 2003 does not provide for the method to calculate compensation. What it does provide is the liability of the licensee to pay compensation in certain scenarios under Section 57 thereof but does not say anything regarding the method applicable to calculating the same. This holding in Raman (supra) relies on Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha. Be that as it may, the overarching principle of just and reasonable, fair compensation would govern the calculation here as well, based on the income of the person and other related claims.” 4. In view of the clear position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Page 3 of 5 901 WP 8892-2017 Supreme Court that compensation under the head of loss of income cannot be computed by following the multiplier method, which is usually adopted in motor accident cases, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned award does not warrant any interference insofar as the compensation under the head of loss of income is concerned. In view of the aforesaid, Civil Application No.7367 of 2026 is rejected. It is held that the impugned award does not warrant any interference with respect to the compensation determined under the head of loss of income. 5. Apart from the amount of Rs.2 lakh awarded towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat towards loss of love and affection. The compensation under the non-pecuniary heads needs to be enhanced. The petitioners/parents of the deceased and Nivrutti (brother) and Bhagyashri (sister), of the deceased shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Thus, an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- is payable towards loss of consortium. In addition, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Page 4 of 5 901 WP 8892-2017 6. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable under the non-pecuniary heads would be Rs.1,90,000/- as against Rs.50,000/- awarded by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat. The petition is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat by an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 01/11/2015, i.e. the first day of the calendar month after filing of the application, till the date of realization of the said amount. Pending CA stands disposed of. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 5 of 5