1 2025:CGHC:50805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 261 of 2015 1. Santoshi Bai W/o Late Mahavir Kanwar, Aged About 25 Years 2. Suleshwari Aged About 06 Months, D/o Late Mahavir Kanwar, being minor through Mother Santoshi Bai, W/o Late Mahavir Kanwar, Both R/o Village Boerdih, Thana And Tahsil Churiya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Appellants/Plaintiffs versus 1. Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon, Now Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Respondents/defendants For Appellants : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board 26/9/2025 1. Plaintiffs-appellants have filed this first appeal being partially aggrieved by judgment dated 27.3.2014 passed in Civil Suit No.7B/2011 by which learned District Judge, Rajnandgaon decreed civil suit of plaintiffs in part and awarded SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- as against total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, for accidental death of deceased due to electrocution. 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit against defendants claiming total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- pleading therein that defendant No.1 provided electric connection to one Shubhlal Soti through cable wire by installing electric pole in agriculture field of plaintiffs. Pole was installed on the land of plaintiffs without their consent or paying compensation. On 27.7.2010, in the morning, when husband of plaintiff No.1 was sprinkling fertilizer on paddy crop sown in his agriculture field, he came into contact with live electric wire, as a result he was electrocuted and died on spot. A criminal was registered in the concerned police station. The doctor who conducted postmortem of the body of deceased, opined that cause of death was shock due to electrocution. It was further pleaded by plaintiffs that the defendants are responsible for the death, because the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the defendants in maintaining electric wire line and transmission of the same. 3. Defendants/respondents upon service of summons appeared before the trial Court, filed written statement denying the averments made in plaint. It was pleaded that the death is 3 due to negligence of deceased himself. It was further pleaded that deceased instead of informing the concerned Lineman about snapping of electric wire from electric pole of his field, himself tried to remove electric wire due to which accident occurred. There is no negligence or default on the part of defendants and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, produced by respective parties, partly decreed the suit and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- to plaintiff/appellants herein. 5. Learned counsel for appellants would argue that the compensation awarded by learned trial Court is not just and proper, being on lower side. He submits that since there is no specific method/calculation available for calculating the compensation in case of death due to electrocution, learned trial Court ought to have followed the procedure adopted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) while calculating compensation in accidental cases. Thus, in absence of documentary proof of occupation and income of deceased at the time of accident, learned trial Court ought to have assessed compensation by determining income of deceased as per Notifications issued by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 4 notifying wage rate for an unskilled worker of the area in question; adding future prospects, applying multiplier and standard deduction considering age of the deceased. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 27.1.2022 rendered in FA No.63/2021 (Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. & ors vs. Smt. Hemendra Netam & ors) as also decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in FA No.168/2024 (Managing Director, CSPDCL and ors vs Smt. Shanti Bai & ors) in which this Court while dealing with first appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in case of death due to electrocution, has assessed compensation in view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. DTC and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the compensation awarded by learned trial Court is adequate and requires no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record of trial court. 8. True it is that plaintiffs failed to adduce cogent documentary evidence to establish their claim that at the time of accident, deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs.300/- per month. However, learned trial Court erred in granting lump 5 sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to plaintiffs/ appellants herein. Ordinarily, in such type of cases, the compensation to be paid to the victims is worked out takiong income of deceased notionally and keeping in mind compensation calcultegd in the Act of 1988. For this view, I am fortified by decision of the Division Bench of this Court in F.A. No.63/2021 (supra) wherein decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra) was relied upon to assess the damages payable to plaintiffs, who are widow, children and mother of deceased who died due to electrocution. Relevant portion of said judgment is extracted below for ready reference:- “29.In order to assess the damages, we would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v Delhi Transport Corporation and Another10. According to the evidence on record, on the date of incident, the deceased was aged about 28 years and was getting salary of Rs.4,773/- per month. For the purpose of calculation of the same, we rounded it to Rs.4,800/- per month. Further considering the age of the deceased i.e. 28 years, future prospects would be considered at 50% of the salary and since there were four dependents, 6 deduction would be one fourth towards the personal expenses of the deceased.” 9. Thus, in absence of proof of occupation and income of deceased, learned trial Court should have assessed income of deceased on the basis of notification issued by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notifying wage rate for unskilled worker of District Rajnandgaon, which falls within Zone-B area, for the period from 1.4.2010 to 30.9.2010, which was Rs.3,488/- per month. Accordingly, notional income of deceased is assessed as Rs.3,488/-. At the time of incident, deceased was 25 years of age, therefore, as per guidelines issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the plaintiffs are entitled for an addition of 40% towards future prospects. Deceased was survived by two dependent family members and as such, there will be deduction of one-third from income of deceased towards his personal and living expenses. Keeping in view the age of deceased as 25 years, a multiplier of 18 would be applied as per decision in case of Sarla Verma (supra). Plaintiffs/appellants are also entitled for compensation towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance 7 Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 10. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the plaintiffs/appellants. 11.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,488/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, total income comes to Rs.4,883/-. Thus, annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.58,596/-. Out of this amount, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting one-third, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.39,064/-. By applying multiplier of 18 to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,03,152/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium and appellant No.2 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. Appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, as held above. Thus, total amount of compensation for which plaintiffs/ appellants would be entitled to receive, comes to Rs.8,13,152/-. 12.Though this Court calculated compensation of Rs.8,13,152/-, however, as plaintiffs/appellants, for the reasons best known to them, limited their claim to an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, 8 therefore, they would be entitled to get Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation with interest. 13.Accordingly, plaintiffs/appellants are held entitled for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of civil suit till actual realization. Any amount already paid to plaintiffs/appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the judgment impugned shall remain intact. 14.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment stands modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. 15.A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-