M.M. Das, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants in a suit for damages and compensation filed by the respondents on account of death of one Sriram Sa. The respondents as plaintiffs filed Money Suit No. 60 of 1990 along with an application under Order XXXIII, Rule 1, CPC for leave to sue as an indigent person. The said application being allowed by Order dated 29.4.1997, the Money Suit was re-numbered as M.S. No. 19 of 1997 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bblangir.
2. The plaintiffs case was that on 19.12.1989 at about 11 A.M. the deceased who was the husband of Plaintiff No. 1 and father of Plaintiff No. 2 while working in paddy field in village Arjunda, came in contact with the stay-wire supporting the electric pole. The said electric pole was with respect to high-tension electric line drawn from Dumerbahal electric sub-station. The stay-wire being charged with electricity, the deceased coming in contact with the said wire was electrocuted and died at the spot. The plaintiffs pleaded that the deceased was the only bread earner of the family and the death was caused due to the negligent act of the Orissa State Electricity Board, which was subsequently taken over by the defendants and the same is an actionable claim. The plaintiffs claimed for a decree for compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/-.
On receiving notice in the said suit, Defendant No. 2 filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations and the liability of 'the defendants to pay the compensation.
3. The Trial Court on the above pleadings framed the following issues:
(1) Whether Sriram Sa had died at village Arjunda on 19.12.1989 coming in contact with the electric charged stay-wire ?
(2) Whether the said stay-wire had been charged with electricity due to negligence of the defendants ?
(3) Whether the defendants are liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs as claimed ?
(4) To what other relief, if any ?
Analysing the evidence adduced by the parties, the Court below came to the finding that Sriram Sa died on 19.12.1989 by coming in contact with the charged stay-wire of the electric pole as claimed by the plaintiff, death of the said Sriram Sa occurred due to the negligence of the defendants for which they are Hable, to pay damages and the quantum of damages payable to the plaintiffs by the defendants is Rs. 1,51,2000/-. With the above findings, the Court below decreed the suit directing payment of the above amount of Rs. 1,51,200/- to the plaintiffs within a period of six months by the defendants failing which to pay the said amount with, 10% interest per annum and further directing the mode of distribution of the amount decreed.
4. Mr. Patnaik, Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the suit was filed under Section 1(A) of the Indian Fatal Accident Act, 1955 and therefore, Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the present case and as such, the suit was grossly barred by the law of limitation. He further contended that though the plaintiffs in their evidence admitted that the deceased was earning Rs. 20/- per day, the Court below has acted illegally and erroneously in holding that the deceased was earning Rs. 40/- per day which is not based on any material available on record.
5. Mr. Panda, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents, on the contrary, submitted that the defendants have neither objected nor pleaded in their written statement that the suit was barred by time and as such, they are precluded from raising the same point for the first time in this appeal. He further contended that irrespective of the pleadings in a case for compensation on account of negligence on the part of the defendants, the Court is to grant just compensation and as the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 1,62,000/- as compensation, there is no error in the impugned judgment decreeing the suit for Rs. 1,51,200/-.
6. With regard to the question of limitation raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellants, I find the said question is academic in view of the fact that though the Money Suit was re-numbered as M.S. No. 19 of 1997, but in fact, the same was filed' on 5.12.1990 as revealed from the record of the Court below. Hence, the suit having been filed within one year from the date of death of Sriram Sa, the same was within the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 82 of the Limitation Act.
7. Now coming to the question of assessment of damages by the Court below, I find from the impugned judgment that the Court below by taking into account the materials available on record and the fact that the deceased was a young man of 25 years old at the time of his death, has rightly assessed the quantum of compensation payable to the plaintiffs to be Rs. 1,51,200/-. I am unable to agree with the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and the Court below should have taken the daily wage of the deceased to be Rs. 20/- instead of Rs. 40/-
8. It is no more res Integra that while calculating the quantum of compensation in a case under the Indian Fatal Accident Act, 1955, the approach of the Court should be to arrive at a just compensation and no strict principle of mathematics can be applied for the said conclusion. In assessing damages, right conclusion is not to be reached by applying what may be called statistical or mathematical test. In a case of present nature, damages for the loss of life on account of an unexpected event such as being electrocuted by coming in contact with the stay-wire of the electric pole, which in ordinary course should be neutral and not charged, the question of assessment of damages requires a separate consideration, it is no doubt true that under the Indian Fatal Accident Act, 1955, there is no scope whatsoever for awarding damages to the plaintiffs on account of their mental suffering and bereavement. However, taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased for calculation of the quantum of compensation is an accepted principle. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances under which death of Sriram Sa occurred, I am of the view that the quantum of compensation/damages as decreed by the Court below in the impugned judgment is not liable to be interfered with.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.