GEB Vs. PRAVIN NANJI NATHBAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal by invocation of the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants (original defendants) have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree recorded in Special Civil Suit No.89/97 by the Learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Junagadh on 31st December, 2003, whereby the claim for compensation based on Law of Tort for resultant injuries and permanent partial disablement to the respondent (Original plaintiff) an amount of Rs.40,000/- came to be awarded and decreed with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. against the original claim of Rs.2 lakhs.

(2.) We have heard, the learned Advocate Mr.Dave for the appellants dispassionately. We have examined the evidence, apart the copies whereof came to be supplied to us in course of the hearing by learned Advocate Mr.Dave. We have also carefully scrutinised the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court Judge.

(3.) As the ill-luck could have been, on 30/6/1995 at about 9.00 a.m. the original plaintiff-the respondent herein became the victim of electrocution while he was climbing on a tree. He touched the electric wire passing near the tree and having an electric poll very close to the tree, as result of which, the original plaintiff Mr.Pravin N.Nathbava who was 14 years of age sustained serious injuries on various parts of the body but his left hand was severely damaged and injured due to which he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Junagadh, where he was undergoing treatment and during the course of the treatment it was noticed that there was necessity to amputate the left hand below the shoulder and ultimately the left hand of a young boy of 14 came to be amputated in the Civil Hospital, Junagadh. It is in this context, a suit came to be filed for the damages and recovery of Rs.2 lakhs with interest before the Civil Court, Junagadh for the injuries and resultant permanent partial disablement sustained by the original plaintiff for the gross negligence on the part of the original defendant-Gujarat Electricity Board and its employees. The plaintiff relied on his evidence at Exh.32, whereas original defendant relied on the evidence of one officer Mr.Dave at Exh. 43. During the course of the recording the evidence, three documents came to be produced before the Trial Court namely: