Appeal against enhanced compensation awarded for the death of a deceased who stepped on a live wire. The court held substantial questions of law did not arise as the procedure was faultless and the compensation reasonable.
The appeals were rejected and the enhanced compensation order was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7299 OF 2012 C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200014 OF 2014
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7299 OF 2012:
BETWEEN:
… APPELLANTS
(Shri Ravindra Reddy, Advocate)
2
AND:
Respondent No.3 and 4 are minors Under Guardian of their natural Mother respondent No.1, All are Residents of Lingankhan Doddi, Taluk & District: Raichur – 584 101.
… RESPONDENTS
(Shri Basavaraj R. Math, Advocate)
This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.01.2012 passed in R.A.No.71/2011 on the file of the Fast Track-I at Raichur, allowing the appeal & setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25.08.2011 passed in O.s.No.160/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Raichur.
3
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200014 OF 2014:
BETWEEN:
… APPELLANTS
(Shri Ravindra Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
4
Respondent No.4 is minors Under Guardian of her natural Mother respondent No.1, All are Residents of Lingankhan Doddi, Taluk & District: Raichur – 584 101.
… RESPONDENTS
(Shri Basavaraj R. Math, Advocate)
This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.01.2012 passed in R.A.No.82/2011 on the file of the Fast Track-I at Raichur, dismissing the appeal & confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.08.2011 passed in O.s.No.160/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Raichur.
These Appeals coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
Since the office objection pertains to production of the decree
and since the amended provision indicates that the decree need not necessarily be produced while filing an appeal, the office objection is over-ruled.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in these two appeals.
5
Company, challenging the concurrent findings of the court below granting compensation and enhanced compensation to the family of the deceased who had died as a result of having stepped on a live wire maintained by the appellants herein.
sought to be questioned in these appeals. The following substantial questions of law are raised in the above appeals:
In R.S.A.7299/2012:
i) Whether the courts below were right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, without giving any finding in regard to negligence on the part of the defendants in the death of deceased Malli Pakirappa? And without framing any specific issue in regard to negligence on the part of the appellants?
6
ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in reversing the finding on issue No.2 without re-appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record?
iii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in applying multiplier 13? Without appreciating documentary evidence in regard to age of the deceased is concerned?
iv) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in fixing monthly income as Rs.4,000/-? Without any evidence on record?
v) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in giving deduction of 1/4th in contra to 1/3rd given by trial court towards personal expenses?”
In R.S.A.200014/2014:
a) Whether the courts below were justified in answering issue No.1 as affirmative without there being any evidence on record to prove the said issue?
b) Whether the Courts below were right in relying upon Exhibit P5 which is Post Mortem
7
report where the contents of the said report is not proved by examining the author of the report?
c) Whether the Trial Court was right in ordering compensation of Rs.3,32,000, when there is no material or basis to arrive at the said figure?
d) Whether the trial Court was right in imposing liability on the defendants, without there being any finding in regard to negligence on the part of the defendants, for the death caused in the incident?”
From a reading of the above, it is evident that what are termed as substantial questions of law, are necessarily questioning the manner in which the court below has proceeded to award compensation and no fault can be found with the procedure. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration. The appeals lack merit even otherwise, as the compensation awarded is in respect of the admitted death of Pakirappa who was a farmer and the family having been granted a
8
reasonable compensation, cannot be faulted. The appeals are
rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the courts below were right in decreeing a suit for compensation without finding negligence or framing issues regarding negligence?
Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited
Smt. Ramakka @ Ramalamma W/o late Malli Pakirappa
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
