Regular Second Appeal No. 571 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 571 of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.5.2009 *** Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Appellants VS. Ranjit Singh Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellants were the defendants in the suit for recovery filed by plaintiff-respondent. They have come up in this second appeal to lay challenge to the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2008 passed by the learned first Appellate Court below by dint of which the suit of the plaintiff, which was dismissed by the learned trial court, has been decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and the plaintiff has been held entitled to recovery of Rs.5 lacs as compensation from respondents besides Rs.10,000/- as costs from respondent No.4. . The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit and sought compensation of Rs.5 lacs on account of injuries sustained by him due to electric shock, which turned into disability in his body. It was the case of the plaintiff that he climbed upon the electric pole on the asking of respondent No.4 to lay the earth wiring. Although he was assured that there was no electricity current flowing in the wires, but it was not actually so and as soon as he came into contact with electric wires, he sustained burn Regular Second Appeal No. 571 of 2009 2 injuries on his body. The stand of the defendants on the other hand was that there was no negligence of Department or its any employee and the plaintiff was never asked or authorized by anybody to carry out the electrical work in the village. Furthermore the plaintiff was not employed by the Electricity Department, hence there exist no liability of the Department to compensate him. As noticed above, the learned trial court dismissed the suit, however, the first appellate Court reversed the findings returned by the trial court and hold respondent No.4 negligent in causing the said accident, as a result of which the plaintiff sustained burn injuries due to electricity shock, resulting into acquiring of disability in his body. Before arriving to the said conclusion the appellate Court below took into consideration the admissions made by respondent No.4 Yashpal, JE of the Department, under whose supervision the work of laying of poles for uninterrupted supply of electricity to village was going on and also commented on the act and conduct of respondent No.4 and the Department in which they contested the litigation, as discernible from para Nos.13, 14 and 15 of the judgment rendered by the appellate Court below. The suit was accordingly decreed in the manner indicated above. On 3.2.2009 when the instant appeal came up for hearing, finding no room to interfere with what has been observed by the appellate Court while holding the plaintiff entitled to the compensation on account of burn injuries received by him due to negligence of appellant No.4. However, this Court issued notice of motion to the plaintiff-respondent on the limited question of quantum of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the compensation awarded to the plaintiff is on excessive side. The plaintiff has not placed any material on record to prove as to from where he has arranged the amount of Rs.2 lacs which he allegedly spent on his treatment. Let us examine whether the amount of compensation awarded to the plaintiff is unjust or otherwise? The word 'just', as its nomen-clature, denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is termed Regular Second Appeal No. 571 of 2009 3 as unfair, unreasonable, unequitable, not just. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the suffering of disability by the plaintiff in his left arm on account of the burn injuries received by him and proved on record vide disability certificate Ex.P1. At the time of occurrence he was unmarried and needless to say that his marriage prospective are very dim and same is with regard to his employment/ engagement in any labour activity so as to earn his livelihood. For the whole of his life he has to depend upon others. When a person becomes completely incapable to do any work and virtually has no enjoyment for life, the same form relevant factors and, thus, requires consideration for the purpose of determining a fair and reasonable amount of compensation. Even the appellants' own witness i.e. Yashpal J.E. admitted that the plaintiff has become permanent disabled due to the injuries and cannot do work for rest of his life due to the injuries suffered. Further, it has come on record that the plaintiff had taken treatment from three of the hospitals for the injuries received by him, but the same could not be cured. All these facts and admissions speak volume about the trauma which the plaintiff underwent and is still undergoing after receipt of the injuries, resulting into permanent disability of left arm and it would not be fair to dislodge the claim of the plaintiff only on the ground that he did not prove the source of money arranged by him on his treatment. As a sequel to what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the amount of compensation awarded to the plaintiff cannot be termed as excessive one and has been granted after considering the fact that due to the injuries sustained he would remain crippled for rest of his life. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the appellate Court below suffer from any illegality or perversity or that the same are based on no evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this regular second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 8,2009 Jiten