1.0. Present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants herein original plaintiffs for enhancement of the compensation for the death of the husband of appellant no.1 who has died due to electrocution while he was traveling in a truck and live electric wire of the Electricity Board touched the neck of the deceased.
2.0. That the appellants herein-original heirs and legal representatives of one Ramaji Madhabhai who died due to electrocution while he was traveling in a truck No. GTG 2302 for selling the groundnuts along with other persons and when he was seated on the body of the truck, a live electric wire of the electricity board touched the neck of the deceased, due to which he succumbed to the electric shock. Therefore, the appellants herein the heirs and legal representative of the deceased Ramajibhai Madhabhai -widow and four minor children instituted Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 1980 in the Court of learned Civil Jude (S.D), Gondal for getting compensation of Rs.75000/. That on appreciation of evidence the learned trial Court assessed the monthly income at Rs.3000/- per month and thereafter deducting Rs.125 per month for the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the dependency of the family at Rs.2000/- per month and considering the age of the deceased between 25 to 27 years applied the multiplier of 15 and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.30,000/-in all towards compensation for the death of deceased Ramajibhai Madhabhai which was due to negligence on the part of the electricity board. Consequently, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit and directed defendant to pay the amount of Rs.30,000/- with running interest at the rate of 6% from the date of suit till its realization. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 19.1.1984 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 1980 in not awarding full compensation as prayed for, the appellants herein-original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.73 of 2006 before the learned District Court, Rajkot and the learned Presiding Office, FTC, Court No.2 by impugned judgment and order has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
2.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below in not awarding full compensation as prayed for and / or in not decreeing the suit as a whole, the appellant herein-original plaintiffs have preferred present Second Appeal under Section 100 for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3.0. Shri Vimal Patel, learned advocate for the appellants-plaintiffs has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in applying multiplier of 15 years. It is submitted that looking to the age of the deceased between 25 to 27 years, the learned trial Court ought to have awarded compensation applying multiplier of at least 18 years. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate for the appellants -original plaintiffs that even otherwise considering the fact that deceased had six members in the family (1) himself (2) appellant no.1 and (3) four minor children, therefore, the learned trial Court has materially erred in deducting Rs.125/- per month towards expenditure of the deceased. It is submitted that considering the fact that there are four minors and one widow and deceased, the learned trial Court ought to have deducted ¼ towards expenditure of the deceased considering the total four units in the family. It is submitted that accordingly the learned trial Court ought to have awarded future economic loss considering the dependency at Rs.225/- per month. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Second Appeal.
4.0. Ms. Acharya, learned advocate for the respondent herein-original defendant has tried to oppose the present Second Appeal by submitting that in the facts and circumstance of the case the learned trial Court has not committed any error and / or illegality in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-per month and Rs.125/- towards personal expenses to the deceased, the learned trial Court has rightly considered the dependency of the family at Rs.175/- per months. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Second Appeal.
5.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below as well as record which has been received from the learned trial Court. It is not in dispute that the deceased had in all six members in the family i.e. deceased himself as wife and four minor children. Therefore, considering one unit for two minor while considering the future economic loss four units are required to be considered. Considering the finding given by the learned trial Court the income of the deceased would be at Rs.3000/- per month, in that case, also considering the four units, the learned trial Court ought to have deducted only Rs. 125/- per month towards personal expenses of the deceased and consequently ought to have awarded the future economic loss considering the dependency of the family at Rs.225 per month. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has materially erred in awarding future economic loss considering dependency of the family at Rs.225 per month. Considering the aforesaid calculation the dependency of the family per annum would come to Rs. 2700/-. Applying multiplier of 15 years, looking to the age of the deceased between 25 to 27 the deceased would be entitled to at Rs.40,500/- towards compensation for the death and instead of Rs.30,000/- as awarded by the learned trial Court, which came to be confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. To that extent, present appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court deserves to be modified.
6.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, appeal succeeds in part. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Gondal camp at Rajkot dated 19.1.1984 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 1980 confirmed by the learned Appellate Court by impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2007 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2006 is hereby modified to the extent that the appellants shall be entitled to in all Rs.40,500/- instead of Rs.30,000/- as awarded by both the Courts below with running interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till its realization with proportionate cost. Decree be drawn accordingly.
sd/-
( M. R. Shah, J. ) "kaushik"