Parmanand Pradhan & Ors. vs Bhojkumar Patel & Ors.

Sushma Sawant, J.

Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants/plaintiffs, being the husband and sons of deceased Kanchan Pradhan, have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05-03-2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mahasamund (Presiding Officer Smt. Anita Dahariya), in Civil Suit No. H 09 B/2023, Shri Parmanand Pradhan and two others v. Shri Bhojkumar Patel and three others, whereby compensation of ₹4,50,000/- was awarded on account of her death due to electrocution. The appellants/plaintiff seek enhancement of the compensation.

Note: It is clarified that the reference in the memo of appeal to an application under Section 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, is erroneous. The application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was for compensation on account of the death of Kanchan Pradhan due to electrocution. The present appeal is confined to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Court below.

The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the civil suit before the trial Court.)

The case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the learned trial Court was that they had filed a plaint claiming compensation of ₹23,36,000/- against the respondents/defendants on account of the death of Smt. Kanchan Pradhan, alleging that her death occurred due to electrocution as a result of the negligence of the defendants. It was pleaded that on 11-07-2021, deceased-Kanchan Pradhan alongwith Smt. Anusuiya Pradhan were working as an agricultural labourer in a field situated at Village-Pithora, Police Station - Basna, Tahsil -Pithora, District -Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). At the relevant time, the agricultural field was surrounded by barbed-wire fencing for protection of crops. An electric connection bearing Service Connection No. 1002584969 had been obtained for an agricultural pump installed in the field, which was being used by defendant No.1 for agricultural purposes.

According to the appellants/plaintiffs, due to the negligence of the defendants in maintaining the electrical installation and ensuring the safety of the fencing, electric current passed into the barbed-wire fencing. Consequently, the deceased came into contact with the electrified wire, suffered an electric shock and died. It was alleged that the incident occurred due to the failure of the defendants to take adequate precautions and maintain the electrical connection and fencing in a safe condition. It was further pleaded that, in connection with the incident, a report was lodged at Police Station Basna, pursuant to which Crime No.396/2021 was registered against defendant Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna.

The appellants/plaintiffs further contended that the deceased was a healthy and hardworking woman who earned approximately ₹300/- per day by working as an agricultural labourer and was also responsible for the maintenance, care and welfare of her family. On account of her untimely death, the family was deprived of her income, support, care and affection, causing substantial financial loss and mental agony. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the appellants/plaintiffs claimed compensation of ₹23,36,000/- under the following heads:

Defendants No.1 & 2 filed their written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and disputing their liability to pay compensation. They have contended that they were neither jointly nor severally responsible for the death of the deceased. It was specifically denied that any accident had occurred due to the electric connection bearing Service Connection No.1002584969. They have further contended that police report had been lodged falsely with the intention of extracting compensation from them. On these grounds, they have contended that the appellants /plaintiffs were not entitled for any relief and prayed for dismissal of the application.

Defendants No.3 & 4, in their written statement, pleaded that the electricity connection bearing Service Connection No.1002584969 stood in the name of defendant No.2 and was being used by defendant No.1. They have further pleaded that defendant No.1 had failed to properly maintain the electrical installation and had been negligent in ensuring the safety of the barbed-wire fencing installed around the agricultural field. According to their defence, electric current passed into the fencing due to such negligence, resulting in the death of Smt. Kanchan Pradhan. They have also pleaded that only defendants No.1 & 2 are responsible for the said accident against whom a report was lodged at Police Station Basna and the plaintiffs have to prove their case by leading legal evidence of the witnesses. They denied the allegations levelled against them to the extent stated in the pleadings and disputed the claim for compensation.

The Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, framed following issue and answered the issue as under:-

Before the Trial Court, Gupteshwar Pradhan (PW-1), Luxmi Patra (PW-2) and Kuleshwar Kumar (PW-3) have been examined on behalf of the appellants/plaintiff. In support of his oral testimony, appellants/plaintiffs have exhibited 28 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-28.

On behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, Bhoj Kumar Patel (DW-1) & Surendra Kumar Patel (DW-2) were examined. However, no documentary evidence was adduced by them. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 neither examined any witness nor adduced any documentary evidence in support of their defence.

After conclusion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Court below partly allowed the suit and awarded a total compensation of ₹4,50,000/- to the appellants/plaintiffs along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the appellants/plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of the present appeal, on the following grounds : -

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment & decree as well as the record of the Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, in support of the appeal, has advanced detailed arguments in terms of the grounds raised in the memo of appeal and has mainly questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Court below. It is contended that the learned Trial Court, while determining the compensation, has ignored the settled principles governing the assessment of compensation and has awarded an exceptionally inadequate amount. It is further contended that, for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased woman, the learned Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the applicable minimum wages instead of adopting an unreasonably low assessment of her income. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, to the extent of determination of compensation, deserves to be modified by enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants/plaintiffs.

Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, while supporting the impugned judgment and decree, has submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of the evidence and material available on record. It is contended that the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to establish any ground warranting interference with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree be affirmed.

The appellants/plaintiffs, during the course of arguments, confined their submissions primarily to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, relying upon the compensation determined in Om Prakash Sahu v. Chhattisgarh State and Others, 2022 (2) HCCD 825 (CG), awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹4,50,000/- in the present case as well, without independently examining the evidence and material available on record. 16. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Rekha and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1545, relying upon the decisions in Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 15 SCC 1, and Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha, (2014) 1 SCC 384, has reiterated that compensation must be determined by applying the overarching principle of awarding just, fair and reasonable compensation, having regard to the proven income and the relevant facts established before the competent forum.

A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned trial Court determined the compensation at a lump sum without independently examining the evidence and material available on record or considering the other relevant factors. It was, therefore, necessary for the learned trial Court to assess what would constitute just, fair and reasonable compensation for the death of deceased Kanchan Pradhan, having regard to the facts and evidence of the present case.

In view of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the income of the deceased is required to be assessed on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. However, determination of compensation does not rest merely upon assessment of the income of the deceased. Other relevant factors, such as loss of dependency, deduction towards personal and living expenses and future prospects also require consideration.

Since no specific uniform formula has been prescribed for determining compensation in electrocution cases, it is necessary to adopt consistent and well-recognized principles for assessing these components so as to ensure uniformity and avoid arbitrary determination of compensation. In this regard, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 provide a reasonable and workable basis for such assessment.

Accordingly, this Court considers it appropriate to follow the aforesaid principles as guiding principles, with due regard to the facts and evidence of the present case, while determining just, fair and reasonable compensation, without mechanically importing the statutory formula under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

For the purpose of determining just, fair and reasonable compensation in the present case, this Court considers it appropriate to adopt the following guiding principles:

At the outset, while considering the income of the deceased Kanchan Pradhan , it is necessary to determine her age, as the same is relevant for assessing the appropriate multiplier. In the plaint, the age of deceased Kanchan Pradhan has been stated to be between 45 years. Her age is also recorded as 45 years in the Merg Intimation Ex.P-5, the Inquest Report Ex.P-13 and the Post-mortem Report Ex.P-20. However, no documentary evidence establishing her actual age has been produced. Even her husband, Parmanand Pradhan (P.W.-1), has not stated anything in his deposition regarding her age. Thus, in the absence of any reliable evidence conclusively establishing her age as 45 years, this Court considers it appropriate to place the deceased in the age group of 46–50 years for the purpose of determining compensation.

So far as the income of deceased Kanchan Pradhan is concerned, her husband, Parmanand Pradhan (P.W.-1), has adduced oral evidence stating that his wife was healthy and hardworking and used to earn ₹300/- per day by doing labour work. Admittedly, no documentary evidence has been produced to establish her actual income. Nevertheless, the fact that the deceased was a healthy and able-bodied woman cannot be overlooked. Even in the absence of proof of actual earnings, a person contributes to the family through his or her capacity to work and perform various activities.

In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to assess her income on the basis of the minimum wages prescribed by the Government and applicable on the date of the incident, i.e., 11-07-2021. Having regard to the applicable rate of minimum wages for an unskilled worker falling under Zone 'C', and in the absence of any evidence to establish that the deceased was engaged in skilled or semi-skilled work, her monthly income is assessed at ₹9,200/-. Accordingly, her annual income comes to (₹9,200 × 12) = ₹1,10,400/- .

It is noteworthy that deceased Kanchan Pradhan was neither employed in Government service nor was her income fixed, but was self-employed. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and having regard to the age of the deceased, falling within the age group of 46 to 50 years, an addition of 25% towards future prospects is warranted. The said addition comes to ₹27,600/- on her annual income of ₹1,10,400/-. Thus, after adding the aforesaid amount, the annual income of the deceased comes to ₹1,38,000/-.

Having regard to the number of dependents and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, one-third of the income, i.e., ₹46,000/-, is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Consequently, the annual loss of dependency comes to ₹92,000/-.

So far as the applicable multiplier is concerned, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident falls within the age group of 46 to 50 years. Therefore, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 13 is applicable. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is assessed at ₹11,96,000/-(₹92,000 × 13), which the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to receive under this head.

In view of the aforesaid assessment, the compensation payable on account of the death of deceased Kanchan Pradhan is determined as follows:

In view of the aforesaid assessment, this Court is of the considered opinion that a total compensation of ₹11,96,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakh Ninety-Six Thousand only) would constitute just, fair and reasonable compensation for the death of deceased Kanchan Pradhan. Accordingly, the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to receive the aforesaid amount of compensation.

In view of the foregoing discussion and assessment, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. The impugned judgment and decree dated 05-03-2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mahasamund, are accordingly modified to the extent that the compensation payable to the appellants/plaintiffs on account of the death of deceased Kanchan Pradhan is enhanced from ₹4,50,000/- to ₹11,96,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Ninety-Six Thousand only).

The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until its realization. Having regard to the nature of the incident, the loss suffered by the claimants and the time elapsed in pursuing the claim, this rate of interest is considered just and reasonable.

The liability of the respondents/defendants to satisfy the aforesaid compensation and the manner of its disbursement shall remain governed by the directions contained in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, except to the extent modified herein.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part with the aforesaid modification. The parties shall bear their own costs. A decree be drawn up accordingly.