A Man Killed By A Collapsing Government Crane: State Loses Appeal, Family Gets More
A scrap dealer died after an old crane at a Gujarat irrigation office fell on him during an auction inspection. The State appealed against the compensation decree. The High Court dismissed its appeal and raised the award.
The Court upheld the trial court's findings on negligence and contributory negligence, and held the suit was in time under Article 82 of the Limitation Act. Even in a suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, the multiplier method applies, and under Pranay Sethi a 40% addition for future prospects was due for a self-employed man under 40. Compensation rose from Rs 12.79 lakh to Rs 18.33 lakh.
- A public office must keep its premises safe for people it invites in.
- Two years to sue from the death, under the Limitation Act.
- Future prospects apply in Fatal Accidents Act suits too.
- The State must deposit the full amount within three months.
- Court
- High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
- Bench
- Justice HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA, Justice HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
- Citation
- First Appeal No. 3207 of 2013
- Case
- First Appeal No. 3207 of 2013
- Decided
- 16 September 2026
- Outcome
- State's appeal dismissed; cross-objection partly allowed and compensation enhanced
The accident
On 30 May 2006, Mohanlal Chunilal Prajapati and his brother went to the office of the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department at Lakhtar in Surendranagar district, to inspect scrap that the department was selling by public auction.
An old hand-operated gantry crane on the premises suddenly collapsed and fell on them. He suffered spinal and chest injuries. With doctors at the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital on strike, he was taken to a private hospital and died the same evening.
His family sued the State. In January 2013 a Senior Civil Judge in Surendranagar awarded Rs 12,79,372 with 9% interest. The State appealed and the family filed cross-objections seeking more.
Liability and time limit
Justices Ilesh J. Vora and R.T. Vachhani upheld the trial court's decision on negligence and contributory negligence. The dilapidated crane was under the department's control, and visitors to an auction inspection were entitled to expect no dangerous, unguarded structure.
The limitation plea failed: Article 82 of the Limitation Act allows two years from the death, and the suit was filed on 8 February 2008.
Why the award went up
The trial court's annual income figure of Rs 1,18,000, based on his work in family businesses, was upheld. But the trial court had not added anything for future prospects.
The State argued that motor accident methods do not apply to a Fatal Accidents Act suit. The Court disagreed: since Susamma Thomas, Sarla Verma and the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, the multiplier method is well established, and a 40% addition applies for a self-employed person under 40.
Recalculated with a multiplier of 16 and conventional heads, the total is Rs 18,33,200. The extra Rs 5,53,828 carries 6% interest from the trial decree. The State must deposit everything within three months. The parents' separate claim was not reopened.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can the State be sued for a death caused by a collapsing structure in its office?
Yes. The Gujarat High Court upheld the State's liability for negligence here.
Do future prospects apply outside motor accident cases?
The Court applied them in this Fatal Accidents Act suit.
Claiming compensation for a death on public premises
- File within two years of the death.
- Collect proof that the structure was under the authority's control.
- Prove income with records made before the death, not after.
- Ask for future prospects under Pranay Sethi.
Source. High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, First Appeal No. 3207 of 2013, decided 16 September 2026 by Justice HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA, Justice HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in