[2025:RJ-JP:19471] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 578/2022 1. Prabhudayal Saini S/o Chauth Mal, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Gram Indok, P.s. Malakheda, Distt. Alwar. 2. Teeja Devi W/o Prabhudayal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Gram Indok, P.s. Malakheda, Distt. Alwar. 3. Santosh Saini W/o Raju Saini, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Gram Indok, P.s. Malakheda, Distt. Alwar. 4. Ekta Saini D/o Raju Saini, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Gram Indok, P.s. Malakheda, Distt. Alwar. 5. Rahul Saini S/o Raju Saini, Aged About 18 Years, Resident Of Gram Indok, P.s. Malakheda, Distt. Alwar. 6. Ravindra Saini S/o Raju Saini, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian/mother Smt. Santosh Saini. Resident Of Gram Indok, P.S. Malakheda, Distt. Alwar. 7. Ashuman Saini S/o Raju Saini, Aged About 15 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian/mother Smt. Santosh Saini. Resident Of Gram Indok, P.s. Malakheda, Distt. Alwar. ----Appellants Versus 1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Chairman, Jvvnl, Ram Mandir Marg, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Executive Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Alwar, Raj. 3. Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Malakheda, Distt. Alwar (Raj.). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 08/05/2025 : The present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the claimants- appellants (for short ‘the appellants’) against the impugned judgment & [2025:RJ-JP:19471] (2 of 4) [CFA-578/2022] decree dt.13.04.2022 passed by the Court of ld. District Judge, Alwar, in Civil Misc. Case (Fatal Accident) No.45/2019, whereby ld. Trial Court had partly allowed the claim petition & awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.12,67,784/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants-appellants on account of death of one Raju Saini @ Rajkumar Saini, who died on 21.09.2018 due to electrocution. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants contends that at the time of alleged incident, the deceased was 35- years of age, working as an agriculturist, milk-vendor & used to earn @ Rs.15,000/- per month. Counsel further contends that ld. Trial Court, has wrongly considered the income of the deceased @ Rs.213/- per day for 26-days, whereas the income of the deceased should have been assessed @ Rs.213/- per day for 30-days. Counsel contends that the ld. Trial Court has wrongly awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- per claimant and, hence, the judgment & decree of the ld. Trial Court may be modified. In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanuram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and in New India Assurance Company & Others Vs. Somwati & Others, MANU/SC/0674/2020, wherein reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ held to be Rs.15,000/-, 40,000/- each claimant & Rs.15,000/- respectively. The parents, wife and children of the deceased are also entitled to get the award under the head of ‘loss of consortium’. [2025:RJ-JP:19471] (3 of 4) [CFA-578/2022] Today, no one is present on behalf of the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, considered the submissions made at bar, gone through the judgment & decree passed by ld. Trial Court & perused the judgments cited herein above. It is an admitted position that the appellants failed to adduce the cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month but the ld. Trial Court erred in decreed the lump sum amount of Rs.12,67,784/- as compensation. Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Laxmidhar Nayak & Others Vs. Jugalkishore & Others, 2018 (1) R.A.R. 45 S.C. and in Laxmidevi & Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Others, 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 S.C., has also held that the wages/income of the deceased should be calculated for 30-days. The ld. Trial Court had already awarded Rs.11,90,784/- towards ‘loss of income’, Rs.15,000/- towards future prospects, Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ and the interest @ Rs.7000/- on the amount mentioned under the head of consortium, funeral & estate. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Laxmidhar Nayak (supra), Laxmidevi (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Supra) & Somwati (supra), the appellants are entitled to get Rs.13,74,144/- towards ‘loss of income’ includes 40% future prospects by calculating it for 30-days, Rs.40,000/- each claimant towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ & Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’. [2025:RJ-JP:19471] (4 of 4) [CFA-578/2022] On the basis of the aforesaid facts & analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to the appellants under the aforesaid heads ought to have been as under:- 1. Loss of Income =Rs.13,74,144/-(6390x12+40% -1/4th x16) 3. Loss of consortium =Rs.2,40,000/-(Rs.40,000/-x6) 4. Loss of Estate =Rs.15,000/- 5. Funeral Expenses =Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.16,84,144/- In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned award dated 13.04.2022 is liable to be modified as above and the appellants are entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.16,84,144/- instead of Rs.12,67,784/- alongwith interest 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition as per the terms of ld. trial Court. The compensation amount received by the appellants in pursuant to the award dt.13.04.2022 passed by ld. Trial Court shall be adjusted in the present judgment & award and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK/