[1] First Appeal is preferred by the appellants herein – original defendants challenging the order dated 31.03.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar in Special Civil Suit No.6 of 1992.
[2] Cross Objection is preferred by the respondent herein – original plaintiff challenging the order dated 31.03.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar in Special Civil Suit No.6 of 1992.
[3] As common order and judgment is challenged in both the matters, they are disposed of by this common order.
[4] Facts of the case are as under : [4.1] It is the case of the original plaintiff that he is resident of village Sidhpur of Khambhalia Taluka and doing agricultural work. That his son Tapubhai Hirji who was aged about 11 years on dated 09.08.1990 while he was going to get butter milk in the farm, at that time, live electric line of the original defendant Board was passing through the said farm. When minor Tapu was passing through the said farm, he came into contact with said live electric wire and received burn injuries. It is alleged that during the medical treatment period, due to serious electric shock, hand of Tapu was amputated for three times. It is alleged that accident happened due to gross negligence of the original defendant. It is further alleged that due to accident minor Tapu could not able to enjoy his life, social life, marriage life happily. The minor Tapu could have earned much during his life if the said incident would not have happened. Therefore, the original plaintiff filed suit to get compensation of Rs.2,00,000/. Subsequently, the suit was amended and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/.
[5] Original defendants filed their reply vide Exh.26 in the suit and mainly contended that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant Board and on the contrary repairing work was going on of live wire and this fact was within the knowledge of the people of surrounding area. It is also submitted that only because of negligence on the part of minor, accident took place and original defendant Board is not liable.
[6] After considering submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering documents on record, learned Trial Court partly allowed the suit and decree is passed to the tune of Rs.4,30,000/ with 15% p.a. being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, original defendants and original plaintiff have preferred this appeal as well as cross objection.
[7] Mr.Dipak Dave, learned advocate appearing for the original defendants submitted that learned trial court has committed error in determining the income of the injured person and by that exorbitant amount is paid under the head of future loss of income. It is also submitted that learned Trial Court has committed error in awarding Rs.1 lac towards pain and suffering and enjoyment of married life. Learned Trial Court has committed error in awarding Rs.1 lac towards permanent attendance expenses.
[8] Mr.Shah, learned advocate appearing for the original plaintiff submitted that trail Court has committed error in not granting full amount of decree though sufficient evidence is produced by the original plaintiff. Therefore, it is submitted that cross objection filed by the original plaintiff may be allowed and judgment and order passed by the Trial Court be modified and decree be passed as prayed for by the original plaintiff.
[9] Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
Learned advocates for the parties took this Court through the order passed by the Trial Court. It is admitted fact when incident took place plaintiff was minor aged about 11 years and no proper care has been taken by the Board while repairing work of live electric was going on. It is not in dispute that injured received burn injuries because of electrocution and his left hand was amputated. Considering medical evidence, learned trial court assessed 100% disability due to said accident. Considering nature of injuries and all relevant factors, learned trial court calculated monthly income of minor at the rate of Rs.1000/ per month, which comes to Rs.12,000/ per year and applying multiplier of 15, awarded Rs.1,80,000/ towards future loss of earning income. In opinion of this Court no error is committed by the learned trial court in awarding future loss of income. So far as amount awarded under different heads i.e. pain, shock and sufferings and permanent attendance etc. are concerned, learned trial court after discussing evidence at length, as learned trial court had opportunity of having been demonstrated evidence, awarded just and adequate amount.
[10] Considering the fact that accident took place in the year 1990, in opinion of this court, it would be just and proper if the interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from filing of the suit awarded by the learned trial court is reduced to 9% p.a. Accordingly, order dated 31.03.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar in Special Civil Suit No.6 of 1992 is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is partly allowed. The other benefits granted to the original plaintiff in the impugned award are not interfered with at all and are hereby confirmed.
[11] Under the circumstances, when learned trial court after considering evidence at length partly allowed the suit, in opinion of this court, no error is committed by this court. The Cross Objection filed by the original plaintiff is dismissed.
[M.D.Shah, J.] satish