[2025:RJ-JP:15563] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 13/2020 1. Samda Devi W/o Late Mohan Lal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Kuchalwada Kalan Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan 2. Norti D/o Late Mohan Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kuchalwada Kalan Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan 3. Rampyari D/o Late Mohan Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kuchalwada Kalan Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan 4. Hansa D/o Late Mohan Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Kuchalwada Kalan Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan 5. Mamta D/o Late Mohan Lal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Kuchalwada Kalan Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan 6. Sunita D/o Late Mohan Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kuchalwada Kalan Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan 7. Kamlesh D/o Late Mohan Lal, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Kuchalwada Kalan Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan 8. Sona D/o Late Mohan Lal, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Kuchalwada Kalan Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan 9. Ramghani D/o Late Mohan Lal, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Samda Devi W/o Late Mohan Lal, R/o Kuchalwada Kalan Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan 10. Sita D/o Late Mohan Lal, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Samda Devi W/o Late Mohan Lal, R/o Kuchalwada Kalan Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan ----Appellants Versus 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Secretary Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Marg, [2025:RJ-JP:15563] (2 of 6) [CFA-13/2020] Jaipur District Jaipur (Raj) 2. Executiver Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Office Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj) 3. Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Devli District Tonk (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Lodha, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 09/ 04/2025 The present appeal under Section 96 CPC has been preferred by the appellants-claimants (for short ‘the claimants’) being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019 passed by the District Judge, Tonk, (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No.14/2018, whereby the trial Court has decreed a sum of Rs.5,28,820/- along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realization as compensation in favour of the claimants. The claimants filed a suit for compensation before the District Judge, Tonk with the averment that on 14.09.2017, the claimants’ husband and father Mohan Lal Raigar had gone for masonry work at the house of Smt. Geera Devi @ Kaushalaya in Shiv Colony, Kuchalwada Road. At about 3.00 P.M. (Noon) he came into contact with 11000 KV electricity line passing over the said house, in which due to supply of voltage, electric current was flowing on. Mohan Lal Raigar was electrocuted and he was taken to hospital at Deoli, where he was declared dead. In this regard, a [2025:RJ-JP:15563] (3 of 6) [CFA-13/2020] report was lodged in Police Station Deoli under Section 174 CrPC, in which during investigation police, found negligency on the part of the respondents-defendants. The claimants claimed Rs. 56,40,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum as compensation. The defendants filed their written statement. They denied any negligency on their part and stated that the entire negligency was attributed to the owner of the house. On the basis of pleadings of the parties trial Court framed as many as four issues. The claimants examined 4 witnesses and got exhibited documents Ex.1 to 8. In defence, the defendants produced the affidavit in evidence of DW-1 Dinesh Kumar and got exhibited documents A-1 to A-5. The trial Court on the basis of the pleading of the parties, framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After hearing counsel for the parties, decreed the civil suit of the plaintiffs and awarded the amount as indicated above. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the trial Court has awarded very meagre amount towards compensation. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the trial Court has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.5,200/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the deceased was skilled labour and earning Rs. 21,000/- per month by doing craftsmanship. Alternatively, learned counsel for the claimants submits that at the time of minimum wages of unskilled labour was Rs. 207/- per day. So, if this Court does not considers the income of Rs. 21,000/- then income be calculated as minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time i.e. 207/- per day. Learned counsel for the [2025:RJ-JP:15563] (4 of 6) [CFA-13/2020] claimants further submits that the trial Court wrongly deducted 1/4th from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per dependency (i.e. 10 persons), 1/5th amount should be deducted from the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the trial Court has awarded very meagre amount of Rs. 40,000/- to claimant No. 1 towards the loss of consortium. He further submits that claimant Nos. 2 to 10 are the daughters of the deceased, therefore, each of them is also entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. So, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court deserves to be modified. Learned counsel for the JVVNL has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the trial Court rightly assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 5,200/- per month because claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.21,000/- per month. So, the judgment and decree of the trial Court does not require any interference of this Court. So, the present appeal filed by the claimants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants as well as the learned counsel for the JVVNL. It is an admitted position that the claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.21,000/- per month while working as Craftsmanship but the trial Court has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,200/- per month. The trial Court had to consider the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages of the unskilled labour prevailing [2025:RJ-JP:15563] (5 of 6) [CFA-13/2020] at the relevant point of time i.e. Rs. 207/-. The trial Court has awarded amount of Rs.40,000/- to claimant No. 1 towards the loss of consortium, whereas each claimant Nos. 2 to 10 is also entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The trial Court wrongly deducted 1/4th from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per the dependency of the deceased (i.e. 10 persons), it should be 1/5th from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. So, the judgment of the trial Court is modified to the extent as under:- Monthly Income 207X30=Rs.6,210/- Annual Income 6,210X12=Rs.74,520/- 1/5th income to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased(-) 74,520-14,904= Rs.59,616/- According to the age of the deceased, multiplier 9 to be applied 59,616X9=Rs.5,36,544/- Add 10% towards future prospects (+) 5,36,544+10%= Rs.5,90,198.4/- (round off=5,90,198/-) Loss of Consortium and Love & Affection (40,000 X 10) Rs.4,00,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.10,20,198/- Less Awarded Amount Rs.5,28,820/- Enhanced Amount 10,20,198–5,28,820= Rs.4,91,378/- The claimants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.4,91,378/- as compensation. JVVNL is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.4,91,378/- (Rs.10,20,198–Rs.5,28,820) with the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said [2025:RJ-JP:15563] (6 of 6) [CFA-13/2020] amount, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same. The enhanced amount shall carry 7.5% interest from the date of filing of suit till the actual payment is made. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. Impugned judgment and decree is modified accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/89