Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2022 (RES) BETWEEN:
1. SHARADHAMMA W/O LATE DAYANANDA @ DAYANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
2. KUMAR S/O LATE DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
3. PRADEEP D
S/O LATE DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS ALL ARE R/O KORAGERE VILLAGE Digitally signed HULIYAR HOBLI, C.N. HALLI TALUK by B VEENA TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572101 KUMARI …APPELLANTS Location: HIGH (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE) COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM, TIPTUR TUMAKURU DIST-572101
2. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER BESCOM, O AND M CIRCLE OLD KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMKUR 572101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) -2- THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.42 RULE 2 R/W. SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2019 PASSED IN RA NO.10002/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 24.08.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.37/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 25.10.2019 passed in R.A.No.10002/2018 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur and the Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.37/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants. -3-
4. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Second Appeal are as follows:- The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for
damages. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Dayananda. On 29.04.2014, at 08.00 p.m., the deceased Dayananda went in search of buffalo calf, which was missing from their house, and did not return to the
house till next day morning i.e., 30.4.2014. One Hanumanthappa s/o Basappa of their village informed plaintiff No.1 that deceased Dayananda is found dead due to electric shock when he had touched the messenger cable of mains wire which was cut and fell down, which was fixed for electric supply from the electric pole to
I.P.set borewell belonged to Omkaraiah s/o.Boraiah. Thereafter, plaintiff no.1 went to the spot along with the villagers and shifted the dead body to the Government hospital, Huliyur and she registered a criminal case before the Huliyur police, who, in turn, initiated criminal -4- proceedings in UDR No.7/14. The doctor issued the post mortem report and gave an opinion that, cause of death
was due to electric short circuit. It was contended that, deceased Dayananda died due to negligent act of the defendants, in not properly maintaining the electric mains wire which was fixed from electric pole to the I.P.set belonging to Omkaraiah s/o.Boraiah and if the defendants had checked the electric cable from time to time, there
was no chance of death of deceased Dayananda. It is contended that, the deceased Dayananada was working as a driver of the tractor, the only bread earner in the family of the plaintiffs and after the death of deceased, the plaintiffs are put to starvation. Hence, the plaintiffs demanded a compensation from the defendants, but the defendants refused to pay the compensation. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for compensation by way of damages.
5. The defendants filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and it is contended that, the incident -5- occurred due to the negligence of deceased Dayananda. It is contended that, there is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
6. The Trial Court, based on the above pleadings, framed the following issues and an additional issue :
1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that one Dayananda s/o.Ningappa died on 29.4.20214 due to electrocution at Koregere village, Huliyar hobli, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumkur District?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that said electrocution is due to the negligence on the part of the defendants ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation, if so, at what rate?
4. What order or decree? Addl. Issue : Whether the defendants proves that this Court have no jurisdiction to try the suit ?
7. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and marked nine documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The official of the defendants was examined as DW.1 and one document was marked as Ex.D.1 After -6-
recording evidence, the Trial Court, on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, additional issue in the negative and Issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed with cost of Rs.8,71,200/- and with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization, against the defendants and ordered that, the defendants are liable to pay the above said compensation amount to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by the trial Court preferred an appeal in R.A.No.10002/2018 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur. The First Appellate Court on re- assessment of oral and documentary evidence allowed the appeal vide order dated 25.10.2019 and held that, the plaintiffs are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,13,056/-, in addition to what has been awarded by the trial Court, with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of suit till realisation.
-7-
8. The plaintiffs, further seeking enhancement in the compensation amount awarded by the Courts below have filed this Regular Second Appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, and the learned counsel for the defendants.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that, the compensation awarded by the Courts below is on lower side. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants supports the impugned Judgment and decree, and prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the compensation granted by both the Courts below is just and proper?"
13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. -8-
14. It is not disputed that deceased Dayananda died due
to electrocution and plaintiff No.1 had lodged a criminal case and same was registered under UDR No.7/14 and further, the plaintiffs have produced the records to show that deceased Dayananda died due to electrocution. The Plaintiff No.1 was examined as P.W.1. She reiterated the
plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and to substantiate their case, the plaintiffs have produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the copy of genealogy tree, Ex.P2 is the FIR copy, Ex.P3 is the complaint which discloses that plaintiff No.1 had lodged a complaint before Huliyar Police Station, Ex.P4 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is the inquest mahazar, Ex.P.6 is the postmortem report and Ex.P.7 is the final report. The Police has registered a criminal case in UDR No.7/14. The plaintiffs have contended that, the death was occurred due to negligence of the defendants. During the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited
from the mouth of this witness to disbelieve the examination-in-chief. -9- In rebuttal, official of the defendants was examined as DW.1, he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief.
15. From a perusal of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, it discloses that
that the accident is of the year 2014, the deceased Dayananda died due to electrocution and the death was due to negligence on the part of the defendants. The Trial Court recorded the finding that, the plaintiffs have proved that, death was occurred due to negligence on the part of the defendants and further, held that the plaintiffs were entitled for compensation and accordingly, decreed the
suit and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.8,71,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The defendants did not challenge the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Trial Court, filed an appeal in R.A.No.10002/2018. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal by granting enhanced compensation of Rs.2,13,056/- over and above the compensation awarded - 10 - by the trial Court, with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of suit, till realization, to the plaintiffs.
16. The plaintiffs have stated that, the deceased
Dayananda was working as a driver and had also produced driving licence as per Ex.P.9 which shows that the deceased was aged about 45 years, but have not produced
any record to show the income of the deceased. Hence, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income is to be taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, 25% (25% of 8500=2,125/-) future prospects has to be added to the notional income of deceased considering the age of deceased which is between 40 to 50 years. Thus, it comes to 10,625/- (Rs.8,500 + Rs.2,125). There are three plaintiffs, therefore, 1/3rd is to be deducted out of Rs.10,625/- (1/3rd of 10,625/- = 3,542/-). Thus, it comes to Rs.7,083/- - 11 - (Rs.10,625/- minus Rs.3,542/-). The deceased was aged about 45 years. Thus, the multiplier applicable to his age group is '14'. Thus, it comes to Rs.7,083/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.11,89,944/-. Plaintiffs are entitled for the compensation of Rs.11,89,944/- under the head 'loss of
dependency'. In addition to it, the plaintiffs are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and each plaintiff is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/-). Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation as under: Sl.No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 11,89,944/-
2. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
3. Loss of estate 15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium 1,20,000/- Total: 13,39,944/- Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled for enhancement of the compensation amount. - 12 -
17. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed with cost. ii) The impugned Judgment & Decree passed by the Courts below are modified. The plaintiffs are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.13,39,944/- as against Rs.10,84,256/-, with interest. iii) The Plaintiffs are entitled for an enhanced compensation amount of Rs.2,55,688/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the suit, till the date of realization. iv) The defendants are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii) Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE rs