1. This First Appeal is filed by the present appellants- original defendants-Gujarat Electricity Board being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1998 passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Panchmahals at Godhra in Special Civil Suit No.154 of 1992 whereby decree of Rs.3,20,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of suit was passed in favour of the present respondents-original plaintiffs.
2. The facts in short are that on 14-12-1991, husband of the plaintiff No.1, father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 and son of plaintiff No.6 named Galapbhai Surtanbhai Rathod aged 35 years were passing through Sangadia Falia. At that time, Shri Galapbhai came in contact with live electric wire which was broken and lying on the road and he was burnt. Consequently Galapbhai succumbed to the injuries on 14-12-1991 at 9 a.m. . Therefore, heirs and legal representatives of deceased Galapbhai Patel filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No.154 of 1992 before the trial court against the appellants-Board claiming compensation. The appellants resisted the claim petition. Based on the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues for determination were framed by the trial court. At the end of trial, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, learned 6th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Panchmahals at Godhra in Special Civil Suit No.154 of 1992 vide judgment and decree dated 31-3-
1998 partly decreed the suit of the original plaintiffs- present respondents which is giving rise to the present First Appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel, Mr.A.D.0za for the appellants and learned advocate, Mr.M.A.Kharadi for the respondents.
4. It is mainly submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Oza for the appellants that impugned judgment and award passed by the trial court is contrary to the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- in assessing the compensation without any documentary proof regarding income. It is further submitted the multiplier of 20 applied by the trial court in the present case is without any justification and is on the higher side. It is further submitted that interest awarded by the trial court is also on the higher side. According to him, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge was grossly exaggerated and not commensurate with the evidence on record and, hence, it is requested that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court may be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned advocate, Mr.Kharadi, for the respondents has submitted that the judgment and decree has been passed by the trial after going through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record. Since the said judgment and decree is just, legal and proper, it is requested that the same may not be interfered with.
6. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment and decree and the reasonings assigned by the trial court in assessing compensation. This Court has also taken into consideration the relevant documents such as FIR and panchnama and other evidence on record.
7. In order to substantiate the claim advanced by the original plaintiffs, the plaintiffs examined widow of deceased Gorkiben at Ex.26 and Navalsing Rathod at Ex.35 and also relied on documentary evidence. The trial court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence such as complaint Ex.29, panchnama at Ex.29, inquest report Ex.30 and post mortem note Ex.31, rightly came to the conclusion that Shri Galapbhai died due to negligence on the part of defendants Board.
8. As far as the quantum awarded by the trial court is concerned, Gorkiben, widow of deceased Galapbhai has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that Galapbhai was earning Rs.100/- per day by doing the work of carpentry. However, the trial court has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month and applying a multiplier of 20 years and deducting Rs.225/- per month towards personal expenses, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded under the head of future economic loss. The trial court has also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and deducting Rs.10,000/- paid earlier by the trial court, a total of Rs.3,20,000/- were awarded by the trial court to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs together with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of suit till realisation.
9. Considering the age of the deceased at 35 years at the time of incident, the trial court has applied a higher multiplier of 20 years. As the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of passing of the order, multiplier of only 18 ought to have been applied by the trial court. Thus, taking monthly income of the deceased as considered by the trial court at Rs.1500/- i.e. Rs.18000/- per annum and applying a multiplier of 18, future economic loss can be assessed at Rs.3,24,000/-. Deducting therefrom Rs.49,000/- towards personal expenses [Rs.225x12x20=Rs.48,600/- rounded off to Rs.49,000/-], Rs.2,75,000/- can be awarded under the head of future economic loss. Adding thereto, Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the trial court towards loss to estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, it comes to Rs.3,05,000/- and deducting therefrom Rs.10,000/- earlier paid by the defendants to the appellants, an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- in all can be awarded to the respondents-original plaintiffs.
10. As far as interest part is concerned, trial court has awarded interest @ 12% from the date of the suit till realisation which, in the opinion of this Court, ought not to have been considered for the entire period. Considering the rate of interest prevailing in the market at the relevant time, interest @ 12% per annum can be considered appropriate for the period from the date of filing of suit till 1999 and thereafter @ 9% per annum till realisation.
11. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 31-3-1998 passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Panchmahals at Godhra in Special Civil Suit No.154 of 1992 is hereby modified and the appellants-original defendants shall pay Rs.2,95,000/- to the respondents-original plaintiffs with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. from 12-10-1992 to 1999 and thereafter @ 9% till realisation. If the amount in excess of the aforesaid has been deposited/paid by the appellants, same shall be refunded. There shall be no order as to costs.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan