Smt. Manesh Devi and Ors v. AVVNL and Ors

Judgment

1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Managing Director City Power House, Hathibhata, Ajmer

2. Superintending Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

3. Assistant Engineer Rural Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Bagad Road, Jhunjhunu. Rajasthan ----Respondents Connected With

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 417/2017

1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through Cmd, City Power House, Hathi Bhata, Ajmer Raj.

2. Superintendent Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jhunjhunu Raj.

3. Assistant Engineer Rural, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bagar Road, Jhunjhunu, District - Jhunjhunu Raj. ----Appellants Versus

1. Smt. Manesh Devi, W/o Late Sandeep Kumar, R/o Village [2025:RJ-JP:1840] (2 of 6) [CFA-34/2018] Bhadonda Kalan, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu Raj.

2. Priyanka D/o Late Sandeep Kumar, R/o Village Bhadonda Kalan, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu, R/o Village Bhadonda Kalan, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu Raj.

3. Dinesh S/o Late Sandeep Kumar R/o Village Bhadonda Kalan, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu Ra

4. Reshmi Devi, W/o Subhash Chand, R/o Village Bhadonda Kalan, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu Raj.

5. Subhash Chand, S/o Bhagirathmal, Village Bhadonda Kalan, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shanker for Ms. Parinitoo Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA DATE OF JUDGMENT Judgment 15 / 01 /202 5 The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2017 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu, (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No.62/2014, titled as “Smt. Manesh Devi and Ors. Vs. AVVNL and Ors.”, whereby the trial Court while allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit as compensation in favour of the plaintiffs- appellants (for short ‘the plaintiffs’). CFA No. 34/2018 has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the trial Court whereas CFA No.417/2017 has been filed by the defendants-respondents (for short ‘the defendants’) challenging the judgment & decree passed by the trial Court on the various grounds. [2025:RJ-JP:1840] (3 of 6) [CFA-34/2018] CFA No. 34/2018:- Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence led by the plaintiffs in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that deceased-Sandeep Kumar was working as Agriculturist and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but the trial Court has wrongly considered the income of the deceased-Sandeep Kumar as Rs. 6,000/- on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that trial Court wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount from the income of the deceased as his personal expenses, whereas according to the dependency, it should be 1/4th. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that trial Court had granted very meagre amount towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection in totatlity of Rs. 50,000/- whereas each of the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the trial Court has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the trial Court has committed gross error in awarding only Rs. 5,00,000/- as a lump sum amount. So, judgment and decree dated 09.03.2017 passed by the trial Court may be modified accordingly. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed the reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of “Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Lal and Anr.” in civil first appeal No. 518/2008 and S.B. Cross- objection (Civil) No. 73/2009 decided on 05.07.2022. [2025:RJ-JP:1840] (4 of 6) [CFA-34/2018] Learned counsel for the defendants in CFA No. 417/2017 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that trial Court has wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- whereas it should be Rs. 166/- per day on the basis of minimum wages prevailed at the relevant point of time because the deceased was unskilled labour. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that trial Court has committed an error in deciding the issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that there was no expert report of the plaintiffs to prove that negligence was on the part of the defendants. The incident occurred solely due to negligence and carelessness on the part of deceased. So, there was no negligence on the part of the defendants. So, judgment and decree dated

09.03.2017 passed by the trial Court be set aside. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendants. Trial Court while appreciating the evidence led by the parties, rightly came to the conclusion that there was negligency on the part of the defendants. So, the trial Court rightly decide the issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. In my considered opinion, the plaintiffs failed to adduce any cogent evidence that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month but the trial Court has considered the income of the deceased Rs. 6,000/- per month, whereas on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at the [2025:RJ-JP:1840] (5 of 6) [CFA-34/2018] relevant point of time it should be Rs. 4,980/- per month. The trial Court has awarded very meagre amount towards loss of love and affection as well as loss of consortium whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- per plaintiff towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. The trial Court has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is modified to the extent as under:- Monthly income 166X30= Rs.4,980/- Annual Income 4,980 X12= Rs.59,760/- Since the deceased was 25 years, multiplier of 17 should be applied Since, the deceased was married, 1/4 income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased According to the age of the deceased, add 40% towards future prospects (+) Loss of Love & Affection to plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 (Rs.40,000X4) and Loss of Consortium to plaintiff No. 1 (Rs.40,000)(+) Loss of Estate(+) Funeral expenses and transportation charges(+) Total Less amount awarded by the trial Court Enhanced Amount of compensation 59,760 X17= Rs.10,15,920/- 10,15,920-2,53,980=Rs. 7,61,940/- 7,61,940+3,04,776/- =Rs.10,66,716/- Rs.1,60,000/-+Rs.40,000/-=Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Rs.13,01,716/- Rs.5,00,000/- 13,01,716-5,00,000= Rs.8,01,716/- [2025:RJ-JP:1840] (6 of 6) [CFA-34/2018] Accordingly, the Civil First Appeal No. 34/2018 filed by the plaintiffs is partly allowed. The plaintiffs are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.8,01,716/-(13,01,716-5,00,000) as compensation. The defendants are directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.8,01,716/- with the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall carry @ 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the actual payment is made. In the result, appeal filed by the plaintiffs is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the defendants stands disposed of accordingly. Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. Impugned judgment and decree is modified accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/62-63