Regular Second Appeal No.2929 of 2007 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No.2929 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: December 01, 2010 Dakshim Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ---Appellants versus Gopi Ram and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants Mr.Harsh Bhardwaj,Advocate, for Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate, for the respondents *** GURDEV SINGH, J. C.M.No. 8115-C of 2007 Heard. This application has been filed by the applicants-appellants for condoning the delay of 146 days in filing the present appeal. Counsel for the appellants has contended that appellant No. 1 is the instrumentality of the State and prescribed procedure was to be followed before filing the appeal and under that procedure, the case passed through the hands of Regular Second Appeal No.2929 of 2007 -2- different officers, which resulted in the delay in filing the appeal. He has placed reliance on on judgments of the Apex Court reported as AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2750 (Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala vs. K.V.Ayisum) and AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1623 (State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and others). Reasons stated in the application, in the light of the ration of these judgments, amount to sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. It is now well settled that the Court is to have a liberal approach while condoning the delay. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of accordingly. R.S.A.No. 2929 of 2007 The respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for damages to the tune of ` 2,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing the suit till the realization of that amount for the death of Smt. Kitabo Devi on account of the negligence on the part of the appellants- defendants. The suit was decreed for ` 90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.2006. Regarding the quantum of damages, the plaintiffs preferred the first appeal, which was accepted by District Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 6.12.2006 and the suit was decreed for the recovery of ` 2, 25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation. The defendants have preferred this second appeal challenging the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court enhancing the amount of compensation from ` 90,000/- to ` 2,25,000/-. Regular Second Appeal No.2929 of 2007 -3- The plaintiffs averred, in their plaint, that plaintiff No. 1 is the husband, plaitniffs No. 2 and 5 are the sons and plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 are the daughters of Kitabo Devi. On 30.5.2001, she had gone to answer the call of the nature at about 6-00 a.m. in the nearby field of one Rao Sahab Rajender. There was electric pole in that field installed by the defendants for the supply of electricity to village Kherki Majra and other villages. Electric wire from that pole became loose from the jumper and came down in the fields. On account of the darkness, Kitabo Devi could not see the wire and got electrocuted after coming in touch with that wire. She was removed to Aryan Hospital for her treatment for the injuries received by her during this electrocution, but she succumbed to those injuries on 1.6.2001. Post mortem on her dead body was conducted on 2.6.2001. The police was informed about this accident and the report was recorded in the DDR dated 1.6.2001. It was on account of the negligence of the defendants that the death of Kitabo Devi took place for which they are liable to pay compensation of ` 2,25,000/-. Before filing the suit, notice was served upon the defendants but they failed to pay that compensation. The suit was contested by the defendants. They admitted the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased. They denied the other contentions of the plaintiffs and pleaded that there was wind and Strom on the night intervening 29-30.5.2001, as a result of which the support wire of the pole had broken down resulting in the tilting thereof thereby lowering the LT Conductor line towards earth. The deceased came in touch with that conductor line and received electric shock. It was only as a result of act of the God that this accident took place and the negligence cannot be attributed to them. They also pleaded that the plaintiffs have no Regular Second Appeal No.2929 of 2007 -4- locus standi to file suit and they are estopped from filing the same by their own act and conduct. In replication to the written statement, plaintiffs denied the contentions raised therein and reiterated their averments made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- 1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- by way of damages on account of death of wife of plaintiff no. 1 on the grounds as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for interest? If yes, at what rate? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Relief To succeed in the suit, plaintiffs examined Sunder Singh LDC, PW-1, Kulbhushan Yadav, Store Keeper, PW-2, Naresh Kumar, PW-3 and Revinder, PW-5. Gopi Ram-plaintiff No. 1 himself entered the witness box as PW-4. On the other hand, no evidence was produced by the defendants. After going through that evidence and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, learned trial court decided Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs whereas no finding was recorded on issue No. 3 on the ground that the same was not pressed by the defendants. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed for the recovery of ` 90,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum. However, in the first appeal, as already said above, that amount of compensation was enhanced to ` 2,25,000/- and the interest was reduced to 7.5% per annum. Regular Second Appeal No.2929 of 2007 -5- I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Counsel for the defendants has challenged the quantum of damages/compensation awarded by the First Appellate Court and according to him the enhancement is not justifiable. He submitted that no evidence was produced by the plaintiffs that the deceased was having the income of ` 2000/-. No authentic evidence was produced regarding her age and as such, the First Appellate Court could not have quantified the damages as ` 2,25,000/- by taking the income of the deceased to be ` 2000/- per month and her age to be 40 years. I do not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the defendants. The First Appellate Court had taken the income of the deceased to be not less than ` 2000/- per month on the ground that she was household lady and rendering services to the family members. It is a matter of common knowledge that the house wives have an important role in the family in the rural areas. They not only cook the food for all the family members but they also do work in the fields and other chores also. That income is certainly to be taken much more than that of a domestic servant. By her death, the plaintiffs have been deprived of her services and no wrong was committed by the First Appellate Court by taking her income to be not less than ` 2000/-. Finding was recorded, on the basis of the evidence, so produced, that at the time of death, the deceased was 40 years old. The average span of life in this country is 75 years. Thus, the deceased was, in case she has not died untimely death, to live for 35 years more for rendering services to the plaintiffs. It cannot be said that the compensation so assessed by the First Appellate Court is not justifiable or that there is no rationale for determining the same. The interest also cannot be said to be Regular Second Appeal No.2929 of 2007 -6- on the higher side as even the fixed deposits in the banks earn interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum and it could have been awarded as per the provisions of Section 34 CPC, up to 12% per annum from the filing of the suit till the date of decree. However, this court is to interfer in the finding of the Appellate Court so for as the future interest is concerned. As per provisions of said section, the future interest could not have been awarded at the rate more than 6 % per annum. There is no merit in this appeal and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is upheld subject to the modification that the defendants shall be liable to pay interest on the sum of 2.25,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the realization of that amount. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE December 01, 2010 PARAMJIT