'"" fw5^-i'^'^ .•'Jf i .-€, ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDDSI & HON'BLB N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ FIRST APPEAL No. 169 OF 2007 Vs. APPEAL UKDER SECTION 96 QP THB CODB OP CIVIL PRO^DURE APPEARAWCE: Mr, B.P. Gupta counsel &r the appeBaats. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, coiuisel for the respondent Per LM. QUDDDSI, J JUDGMBNT (ORAL1 (06.09.2010) 1. This is au admitted appeal. Therefore, heard finally with fhe consent ofcounsel for both fhe pardes. 2. This appeal has been filed agamst the iiupugned judgment aud decree dated 11.09.2007 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Jaajgir decreeing a sum of Rs.3,67,400/- as coinpensation iu favour of the dependent of fhe deceased who died due to bum injuries ditring fhe course of treataient in. fhe hospital as a result of coming iato contact APPKLLASTS 1. Chhattisgarh State EIectricity Board, fhroi^h Chau-man, Raipur (C.G). 2. Executive Engineer, Chliattisgarh State Electricity Board, Jaiygir (C.G). 3. Junior Enguieer (OflBce In Chai^e), DMtdbution Centre Pamgarh, Chtiattisgarh State Electricity Board, ;Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgu- Champa (C.G). RBSPONDBNTS Snit. Shiikra wara Bai, ay/ed about 45 years, w/o Late Rauiji Sahu, Jati TeU, R/o ViUage Meoo, Tahsil Pamgarh, Distt. Jaajgir Champa (C.G). ^ fhe Uve high tension wirc which came down about 8 ft. fix>ni its original height of 18 ft. about the ground level. 3. The brief facts of fhe case are fhat fhe plaintiff ffled a civil suit ia the Court of Addl, District Judge, Jaajgir claimiug Rs.5,76,000/- towards corapeiisation on accoiint ofdeath of her husband and Rs.95,000/- towards fuiifiral expenses ete. It was alleged that the 11 KV transiuission line was passiag fix>m fhe viUage Meoo. On 11.11.2005 the said electric wire was hangmg with 6 feet height. Deceased Ramji Sahu while canying the biuudle of grass on his head, passed through beneafh fhe said hanging wire and came into contact with fhe Uve electdc wire as a result ofwtuch he sustained buru uijiuies aad later died ui the hospital during fhe coiirse of trcatinent The appeUants deiued by the said claun. They also deiued the negligeuce on fhe part ofany ctnployee offhe C.S.E.B., fherefore, they are not liable for the sam.e. 4. The leamed coiu-t below afler hearing the parties and considering the material on record held that the plaintififwas entiUed to Rs.3,67,400/- inaU. 5. According to D.W.l Sachin Vottalwar, Junior Enguieer and D.W.2 Mani Ram, lineinan (helper) in fheir cross examination stated that the electric wire wliich could- have been at 18 ft., caoie down to 9 ft, above the grouad but D.W.3 Ratiram who was posted as ]iaeman ou the date of iucident, has stated in tus cross examination ttiat fhe live electdc wire caine down to 8 fL, and also the fact that on the iiext day puUed the said wire aud kept it at 18 ft. 6. The age of the deceased was ia between 45 and 50 years. Ex.P.14 is the labour card issued by fhe contractor which shows that the deceased was earaing Rs. 150/- per day. The learaed court below calculated fhe inonthly eaming of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month aad after deductmg l/3rd towards personal, the dependency of fhe dependent was fixed as Rs.2000/- and Rs.24,000/- per anniim. Lookiag to the age of the deceased, the tribunal adopted the laidtipUer of 13. Thus the total dependency worked out to Rs.3,12,000/- aad after adding the amounts granted towards funeral expenses, loss oflove and affection aad loss of estate etc., the decree to the tune of Rs.3,67,400/- has been passed along-with 6% interest 6-oni fhe date of institution of the suit i.e. 27.1.2006 tffl the date of its reaUzation wittun a period of two inoaths. In case the amount is not paid within two inonfhs, fhe rate of mterest would be 9%. 7. Considering the facts and circumstauces ofthe case, we see no ground to interfere with the quantuia as the same has been calculated in proper way. However, with regard to interest part fhat is 9% per annum, we see no reason to eiiliauce the rate of iaterest and therefore, we reduce it to 6%. In view of above, we atlow this appeal in part reduciag the rate of intercst to 6% from 9%. Rest part of fhe decree shaU n"main uitact. The parties shalt bear their own costs iu fiUng the appeal. Su<- IjVI.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge )P:aol