1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of Appeals and they arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court, all these Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The original plaintiffs instituted Special Civil Suit No. 2/2006 against the original defendant-Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dhoraji claiming a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs towards compensation for the death of Shri Mansukhbhai Chanabhai Dabhi-husband of original plaintiff no. 1 and father of original plaintiffs nos. 2 to 4, who died on account of electrocution shock, which had taken placed on 11/06/2011.
2.1. There are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below on negligence, which are not challenged by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant, this Court is not considering anything further on the aspect of negligence on account of electrocution shock to the deceased. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it was the case on behalf of the appellants-original plaintiffs that from the agricultural income they used to get Rs. 50,000/-, which is much less than what they were receiving at the time when the deceased was alive and cultivating the land. The suit was resisted by the original defendant disputing the agricultural income of the deceased. However, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit directing the original defendant-Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. to pay a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with 6% interest on account of compensation to the appellants-original plaintiffs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court awarding a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-
only, the appellants-original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 52/2008 before the learned District Court for enhancement of the compensation. However, the appellants- original plaintiffs restricted their claim in the appeal to Rs. 5 lakhs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court awarding compensation at Rs. 2,50,000/- the original defendant also preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 4/2009 before the learned appellate Court. Both the aforesaid appeals came to be heard by the learned appellate Court together and considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month and considering prospective income, the learned appellate Court held the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month and deducted 1/3rd for his personal expenditure i.e. Rs. 2,000/- and considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 12, came to the conclusion that the appellants-original plaintiffs are entitled to Rs. 8,16,000/-. However, as the appellants-original plaintiffs restricted their claim to Rs. 4,99,999/- the learned appellate Court held that the appellants-original plaintiffs are not entitled to any amount more than Rs. 4,99,999/- and consequently allowed the appeal preferred by the appellants- original plaintiffs directing the original defendant to pay a total sum of Rs. 4,99,9999/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization and consequently dismissed the appeal preferred by the original defendant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order/decree passed by the learned appellate Court dated 20/09/2011 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 52/2008 as well as Regular Civil Appeal No. 4/2009 the original defendants has preferred Second Appeal Nos.
69/2012 and 70/2012. Having served with the notice of the Second Appeals, the appellants-original plaintiffs have preferred Second Appeal No. 134/2012 making a grievance that though the learned appellate Court has held that the appellants-original plaintiffs will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,16,000/- the learned appellate Court has passed decree for an amount of Rs. 4,99,999/- only, the learned appellate Court ought to have passed the decree for an amount of Rs. 8,16,000/- with a direction to pay the deficit Court fees.
2.2. As stated hereinabove, the question with respect to negligence is not required to be considered as no submissions have been made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties on the same and as there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below on the same and, therefore, this Court is required to consider the quantum of compensation to be paid to the appellants-original plaintiffs.
3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it appears and it is not in dispute that as such the deceased had agricultural land, which he was cultivating. It has also come on record that the deceased was cultivating the crop of groundnut. It is true that as such there is no specific evidence with respect to the income derived by the deceased while cultivating the agricultural land and, therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence, this Court is required to consider the just amount of compensation to be paid to appellant no. 1-original plaintiff no. 1 who lost the deceased at the young age of 30.
3.1. As such in the similar set of facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur reported in 2003 (7) SCC 484 has considered the monthly agricultural income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and his financial contribution was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. It appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the status of the deceased as a manager and there is possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after the agriculture. Applying the similar analogy and considering the number of persons in the family, it appears to the Court that if dependency is considered at Rs. 2250/- per month it will meet the ends of justice and it can be said to be a fair and just compensation to the original plaintiffs. Considering the above dependency multiplied by 12 it comes to Rs. 27,000/- and considering the age as 17 years applying the multiplier of 17 total compensation will come to Rs. 4,59,000/-.
4. Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiffs has stated at the bar, under instructions from his clients, that if a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the suit till realization is granted, the appellants-original plaintiff will be satisfied. Shri Deepak Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant is not in a position to seriously dispute the dependency at the rate of Rs. 2,250/- per month.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and order/decree passed by the learned appellate Court awarding compensation to the original plaintiffs at Rs. 4,99,999/- deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, Second Appeal No. 69/2012 and 70/2012 are partly allowed and the impugned judgment and order/decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gondal Camp at Dhoraji dated 20/09//2011 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 52/2008 is hereby modified to the extent holding that the original plaintiffs shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- by way of compensation with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. The aforesaid Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Consequently Second Appeal No. 134/2012 field by the original plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the statement made by Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiffs recorded hereinabove that if the original plaintiffs are awarded compensation at Rs. 4,50,000/- they will be satisfied. Consequently, Second Appeal No. 134/2012 is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.
7. It goes without saying that any excess amount deposited i.e over and above Rs. 4,50,000/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the suit till realization the same shall be refunded to the original defendant by an account payee cheque. Out of the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the suit till realization the learned trial Court is directed to see that the parties shall be governed by the order passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 4855/2012 in Second Appeal No. 69/2012 with Civil Application No. 4856/2012 in Second Appeal No. 70/2012 i.e. 90% of the total amount awarded to be kept in the Fixed Deposit for a period of 5 years and the original plaintiffs shall be entitled to the periodical interest on the same.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji