1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 211 of 2024 1 - Ku. Meena Jaiswal D/o Late Jaharilal Jaiswal Aged About 12 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Grandfather Sahasram Jaiswal Son Of Late Vishram Jaiswal, R/o Nawapara Ward No. 13, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharouda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Karina Jaiswal D/o Late Jaharilal Jaiswal Aged About 10 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Grandfather Sahasram Jaiswal Son Of Late Vishram Jaiswal, R/o Nawapara Ward No. 13, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharouda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 3 - Karan Jaiswal S/o Late Jaharilal Jaiswal Aged About 8 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Grandfather Sahasram Jaiswal Son Of Late Vishram Jaiswal, R/o Nawapara Ward No. 13, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharouda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 4 - Laxman Jaiswal S/o Late Jaharilal Jaiswal Aged About 6 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Grandfather Sahasram Jaiswal Son Of Late Vishram Jaiswal, R/o Nawapara Ward No. 13, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharouda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Shyambai Jaiswal W/o Sahasram Jaiswal Aged About 54 Years R/o Nawapara Ward No. 13, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharouda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sahasram Jaiswal S/o Late Vishram Jaiswal Aged About 57 Years VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 R/o Nawapara Ward No. 13, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharouda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Office At Behind Rajkumar College, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Executive Engineer (Communication / Maintenance) Division Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Sakti, Tahsil Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 3 - Junior Engineer (Communication / Maintenance) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Chhapora, Tahsil Malkharouda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Electric Inspector State Of Chhattisgarh, Bairanbazar, Fawwara Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause Title Taken From Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants :- Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate No. 1 to 3 For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Justice Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 30.10.2025 Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. The present first appeal has been filed by the appellants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2024, passed by the learned Second Additional District 3 Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 01- B/2023 (Annexure A-1). 2. Following prayer has been made by way of this appeal:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and also be pleased to enhance the claim amount passed in the judgment and decree dated 08-02- 2024, passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.01-B/2023 (Annexure A- 1) and also be pleased to allow the relief as prayed in the civil suit filed by the appellants, in the larger interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 06.10.2021, the father of appellants No.1 to 4 and son of appellants No.5 and 6, namely Jahari Lal, came in contact with a live electric wire and died due to electrocution. The matter was reported to Police Station Malkharauda, District Sakti (C.G.), where Merg No.67/2021 was registered, and postmortem was conducted, in which the doctor opined that the cause of death was electrical shock. The deceased was working as a Carpenter, earning about Rs.9,000/- per month, and was the sole earning member of his family, upon whose income all the appellants were dependent. Therefore, the appellants claimed compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- from the respondent electricity company. The respondent company filed its reply denying all the allegations and contending that the deceased 4 himself was responsible for the incident. The learned trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by judgment and decree dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure A-1), partly allowed the claim and awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the appellants; hence, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants have preferred this First Appeal before this Hon’ble Court. 4. Since the learned trial Court has already held that the strict vicarious liability of non-applicant Nos. 1 to 3 is joint and several, the challenge in this appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs is confined to the quantum of compensation award. Accordingly, we proceed to examine and decide only the quantum of compensation. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and have drawn erroneous conclusions contrary to the material facts and settled legal principles. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court committed a grave error in misinterpreting the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and defendants, and failed to consider the same in its proper perspective. The plaintiffs had duly established their case before the trial Court by producing cogent documentary and oral evidence in support of their claim. There 5 was no objection from any person regarding the entitlement of the plaintiffs, and the claim for compensation of ₹23,00,000/- was fair, reasonable, and not excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further contended that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court below suffer from illegality, perversity and the judgments are therefore liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 12, National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 & Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed by them against the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, vehemently oppose the submission of counsel for the appellants and submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is just, proper, and based on the facts and evidence brought on record and needs no interference by this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the documents annexed with the appeal carefully. 8. As regards the income of the deceased, though appellant No.6 Sahasram Jaiswal, stated in his deposition that at the time of 6 incident, the deceased was aged about 34 years and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by working as a Carpenter, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced by him to substantiate the said fact. In cases where the monthly income of the deceased is not proved by any documentary evidence or reliable oral testimony, the Courts are justified in assessing notional income based on the Minimum Wages Act, considering the nature of the work of the deceased was engaged in. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) specifically held that where the deceased was self- employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. However, in the absence of evidence, the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act can be the basis for determining income. 9. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) and considering the fact that the incident took place on 06.10.2021 and at that time, minimum wages for unskilled labour was Rs.9,800/- per month, it would be just and proper to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.9,800/- per month. Likewise, in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has prescribed the multiplier of 16 for the age group between 31 to 35 years. Therefore, in the instant case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 34 years, the applicable multiplier would be 16. 7 10. As regards the amount awarded towards future prospects, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) held in para 59.4 which reads under:- “59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the deceased was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.” 11. Thus, applying the principle of law laid down in the said matter, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 34 years and the nature of his job, an addition of 40% of the established income is warranted towards future prospects. As regards the dependency upon the deceased, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) has held that where there are six dependents, the deduction should be 1/4. Thus, the appropriate deduction in the present case would be 1/4 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased in this case. 12. So far as consortium part is concerned, the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), while dealing with the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has observed in paras 21, 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 22 and 23 as under:- “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 8 dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, championship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most 9 jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.” 13. In view of dictum rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), we propose to re-compute the compensation by taking into account the number of dependents i.e. 6. As the appellants are children and parents of the deceased, they are entitled to be awarded Rs.48,000/- each towards loss of consortium and parental consortium. Thus, a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- is assessed under this head. Likewise, claimants are also entitled to get an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- towards funeral and ritual expenses. 14. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation in the following manner:- 10 SI. No. Head Calculation (in rupees) 1 Income of the deceased @ Rs.9,800/- Rs. 9,800/-x12= Rs.1,17,600/- 2 40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects Rs.47,040/- S.No.1 + 2 Rs.1,64,640/- 3 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.1,23,480/- (Rs.1,64,640/- Rs.41,160/-) 4 Compensation after multiplier of 16 is applied Rs.19,75,680/- 5 Loss of Estate (with 10% increase in every 3 years) Rs.18,000/- 6 Funeral and ritual expenses after death of the deceased(with 10% increase in every 3 years) Rs.18,000/- 7 Loss of Consortium(with 10% increase in every 3 years) (Rs.48,000/- x 6) Rs.2,88,000/- Total Compensation Rs.22,99,680/- 15. Thus, the appellants/plaintiffs are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.22,99,680/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till its payment. The amount of Rs.4 lakhs along with interest already paid to the appellants/claimants shall be adjusted accordingly. The apportionment of the compensation amount amongst the appellants shall be in the same proportion fixed by the learned trial Court. 16. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part with modification in the impugned judgment and decree to the above extent. 11 17. A decree be drawn up accordingly. No order as to cost(s). sd/- sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Vishakha