COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-573-2002 (O&M) Smt. Ramali Devi & Ors. v. HSEB & Anr.

Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. **** The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by three out of four plain(ffs assailing the judgment & decree dated 28.09.2001 passed by the learned Addi(onal District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the compensa- (on awarded by the learned trial Court on account of death of Prem Chand was reduced from ₹2,71,000/- to ₹2,31,000/-. Following substan(al ques(ons of law are to be considered in this

case: (cid:1) Whether the first Appellate Court erred in law in reducing the compensa- (on despite affirming the finding of negligence of the defendant? (cid:1) Whether the principles governing assessment of compensa(on under the Motor Vehicles Act, including mul(plier method and future prospects, are RSA-573-2002 (O&M) applicable to claims arising out of death due to electrocu(on in a civil suit? (cid:1) Whether remarriage of the widow can be a valid ground to either deny or reduce compensa(on payable to her?

The case arises out of the unfortunate death of Prem Chand, who died on 19.09.1994 due to electrocu(on caused by broken electric wires main- tained by the defendant-authori(es. The specific case of the plain(ffs is that the said wires had been lying una@ended in a damaged condi(on for more than 15 days and despite complaints made to the officials, no steps were taken to repair the same. As a result, Prem Chand came into contact with the live wire and died.

The deceased was 27 years of age and was the sole breadwinner of the family comprising his widow, two minor children and aged mother.

The defendants contested the suit by denying negligence and al- leging that the deceased had mishandled the transformer.

The learned trial Court, upon apprecia(on of evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the death of Prem Chand occurred due to negligence of the defendant-authori(es in not repairing the broken wires despite prior com- plaints. Compensa(on of ₹2,71,000/- was awarded.

The first Appellate Court affirmed the findings of negligence but reduced the compensa(on to ₹2,31,000/- and also reduced the rate of interest.

Ld. Counsel for the appellants–plain(ffs contends that the first Ap- pellate Court erred in reducing the compensa(on and instead seek its enhance- ment. It is argued that no amount was added towards future prospects and that, applying se@led principles akin to motor accident jurisprudence, the de- ceased being 27 years of age, a mul(plier of 17 ought to be applied, with 40% addi(on towards future prospects and only 1/4th deduc(on towards personal expenses considering there were four dependents. RSA-573-2002 (O&M)

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent does not seriously dispute the applicability of these principles but submits that, in view of the remarriage of the widow, the deduc(on towards personal expenses should be taken as one-third instead of one-fourth.

I have considered submissions of both the sides and have perused the record carefully.

The finding of negligence recorded by both the Courts below is concurrent and has not been assailed by the respondents. The same is a pure finding of fact based on evidence and does not call for any interference in sec- ond appeal.

Issue rela(cid:9)ng to applicability of Motor Vehicles Act Principles : Whether the principles evolved under the Motor Vehicles Act can be applied to cases of electrocu(on?.

Though the present claim arises out of a civil suit based on tor- (ous liability, it is now well se@led that the principles evolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for assessment of compensa(on under the Motor Vehicles Act provide a consistent and ra(onal framework applicable even to other cases of accidental death.

In M.P. State Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, 2002 (1) SCR 164 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that electricity authori(es are liable for elec- trocu(on on the principle of strict liability and compensa(on must be realis(c. Similarly, in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 (8) SCC 197, it was held that structured formula and mul(plier method ensure uniformity and fairness in awarding compensa(on.

Thus, it is held that mul(plier method, future prospects, and de- pendency principles as laid down in motor accident jurisprudence are applicable as guiding principles even in civil suits rela(ng to electrocu(on deaths. RSA-573-2002 (O&M)

Quantum of Compensa(cid:9)on : The income of the deceased has been assessed at ₹1,800/- per month, which is not disputed. The annual income thus comes out be to ₹21,600/-. The deceased being 27 years of age, an addi(on of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made in view of Na)onal Insur- ance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, taking the annual income to ₹30,240/-.

There were four dependents. The conten(on of the respondents that the widow should be excluded on account of remarriage deserves to be re- jected. The cause of ac(on arises on the date of death and subsequent remar- riage does not ex(nguish the right to compensa(on.

Accordingly, deduc(on of 1/4th towards personal expenses is ap- plied in terms of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corpora)on, and the annual loss of dependency is assessed at ₹22,680/-.

Applying the mul(plier of 17, appropriate to the age of 27 years, the loss of dependency works out to ₹3,85,560/-.

Keeping in view that the incident occurred in the year 1994, a rea- sonable amount awarded under conven(onal heads is as follows: (cid:1) Loss of consor(um (15,000/- each) (cid:1) Loss of estate and funeral expenses : ₹60,000/- : ₹15,000/- (cid:1) Thus, the total compensa(on comes to :₹4,60,560/-.

In view foregoing discussion, it is held that: (cid:1) The first Appellate Court erred in reducing the compensa(on without any legal basis. So, ques(on in this regard is answered in favour of the appel- lants. (cid:1) Principles of Motor Vehicles Act are applicable as guiding principles in electrocu(on cases—answered in favour of the appellants. RSA-573-2002 (O&M) (cid:1) Remarriage of widow is not a ground to deny or reduce compensa(on— answered in favour of the appellants.

The compensa(on shall be appor(oned as follows: (cid:1) ₹1,75,000/- each to the two minor children, (cid:1) ₹60,560/- to the widow, (cid:1) ₹50,000/- to the mother of the deceased, along with propor(onate interest.

Pending applica(ons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

01.05.2026 Nee(cid:9)ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No Uploaded on.:01.05.2026