IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RFA.No.3/2003. Date of Decision :18th August,2008 Ghundari Devi & Ors. ….Appellants. Versus: HPSEB & another . …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants: Mr. V. D. Khidta, Advocate. For the respondents. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J.(Oral). The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.7.2002 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 4 of 2001 titled as Ghundari Devi & Others v. H.P.S.E.B. & another. On 12.10.1998, Shri Sewa Ram expired after coming in contact with the High Transmission Line set-up by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. The appellants/ plaintiffs, as legal heirs of deceased Sewa Ram filed a civil suit claiming compensation of Rs.3 lacs on the ground that the respondents/defendants had been negligent in maintaining the 2 H.T. Line and the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff Shri Sewa Ram died due to electrocution. The plaintiffs’ suit was resisted by the defendants and based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Shri Sewa Ram had died on account of negligent act of the defendants? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation and from whom are the plaintiffs entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not competent and maintainable and liable to be dismissed? OPD 4. Whether the suit lacks better particulars and hence liable to be rejected? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Relief.” The trial Court, after examining the material on record (oral and documentary) came to the conclusion that Shri Sewa Ram had died on account of negligent act of the defendants and the legal heirs were entitled to compensation of Rs. 2 lacs from the defendants. Issues No. 3, 4 & 5 were decided against the defendants and the suit was held to be maintainable and within limitation. The respondents (defendants) H.P.S.E.B. has not assailed the impugned judgment and decree and is satisfied with the findings of facts returned by the Court below. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. The other findings of facts recorded by the 3 trial Court are not in issue in the present appeal and as such are not being adjudicated upon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. While deciding issue No.2, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Shri Sewa Ram being member of the Army Force had been drawing a pension of Rs.1585/- per month and was also having an additional income of Rs.2250/- per month as he was working as an unskilled labourer. Thus, the total income determined was Rs.3835/- per month out of which Rs.2000/- was held as contribution for the maintenance and upkeep of the claimants. Shri Sewa Ram admittedly left behind his wife, two daughters (one minor) and two minor sons. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the findings of facts with regard to the determination of the actual income and contribution of deceased Shri Sewa Ram. However, the challenge is with regard to the age of the deceased Shri Sewa Ram, which has been taken to be 65 years by the trial Court. Challenge is also for the reason that having determined the total amount of compensation to be Rs.2,40,000/-, the deduction of Rs.40,000/- thereupon is not only unwarranted but is also without any reason. From the combined reading of the statements of Smt. Ghundari Devi (PW-1), Shri Inder Dass (PW-4), Shri Harish Kumar (PW-5), Shri M. R. Chauhan (PW-6) and also from the 4 perusal of the F.I.R. Ext.PW-4/A and post mortem report Ext.PX, it is clear that the age of the deceased Shri Sewa Ram as on the date of accident was 52 years. The lower Court has determined the age of the deceased Shri Sewa Ram to be 65 years only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. In fact the exact finding recorded by the Court below is reproduced as under:- “I find that Sh. Sewa Ram could not be said to be more than 65 years in age, in any case, at the time of his death on 12.10.1998. Due notice has to be taken of longevity of life in recent years.” From the record, it can safely be concluded that the age of Shri Sewa Ram was 52 years as on the date of his death on 12.10.1998. While determining the compensation payable to the claimants, the Court below has applied the multiplier of ten while arriving at the total sum payable to the claimants. In my view, the multiplier of eleven, as per the second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has to be applied to arrive at the total amount of compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- payable to the claimants. The deduction of Rs.40,000/- made thereupon by the trial Court, in my view, is uncalled for. From the record, there seems to be no justification for the same. The suit is for a sum of Rs.3 lacs and, in my view, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,64,000/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @6% on the amount from the date of filing of the suit till the payment is made. The 5 present appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.7.2002 is modified accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 18, 2008 (rana)