Partly allowed

Neelamma v. Superintendent Engineer

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024RSA/773/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs sought enhancement of compensation for the electrocution death of the family's breadwinner who stepped on a broken BESCOM electric wire. The High Court applied a Division Bench formula, computing total compensation of Rs.14,42,936/- and awarding an additional Rs.9,01,936/- with 6% interest.

What the court decided

AI extract

Neelamma Vs Superintendent Engineer — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39653 RSA NO.773 OF 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.773 OF 2021 (RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NEELAMMA W/O LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶9

GIRISH S/O LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN/ MOTHER- APPELLANT NO.1.

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: MATHIGHATTA VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER WORK AND EXECUTION CIRCLE, BANGALORE ELECTRICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, O AND M CIRCLE, OLD KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101. …RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. SANDESH T.B., ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:39653 RSA NO.773 OF 2021

¶19

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08^TH AUGUST, 2019 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.155 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01^ST APRIL, 2017 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.341 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., TUMAKURU.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs, challenging the judgment and decree dated 08^th August, 2019 passed in Regular Appeal No.155 of 2017 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Tumakuru (for short, hereinafter referred to a 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal in-part and modifying the judgment and decree dated 01^st April, 2017 passed in Original Suit No.341 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Tumakuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein, the suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed in-part.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:39653 RSA NO.773 OF 2021

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

¶26

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff No.2 is the son of deceased Prakash. On 17^th May, 2012 at about 6.00 a.m., the said Prakash stepped the broken electric wire lying on the earth and died at spot due to electrocution. In this regard, a complaint was lodged at jurisdictional Police Station and criminal proceedings were initiated in UDR No.12/12. It is further case of the plaintiffs that, death of Prakash was on account of negligence on the part of the respondent-BESCOM and therefore, plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.34 of 2016 before the Trial Court, seeking damages.

¶27

On service of notice, defendant-BESCOM entered appearance and filed detailed written statement and took-up a specific contention that the electrical line was broken due to the natural calamities and the deceased Prakash has negligently stepped on the wire and died due to electrocution. Accordingly, the defendant-BESCOM sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:39653 RSA NO.773 OF 2021

¶30

On the basis of pleadings on record the Trial Court framed issues for its consideration.

¶31

In order to prove their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1 and got marked 5 documents as Exhibits P1 to P5. On the other hand, defendant-BESCOM examined their official as DW1 and no documents were marked.

¶32

The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by judgment and decree dated 01^st April, 2017, decreed the suit in-part by awarding compensation of Rs.2,62,000/with interest at 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till realisation. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred Regular Appeal No.155 of 2017 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the defendantBESCOM. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by judgment and decree dated 08^th August, 2019, allowed the appeal in-part and held that the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,41,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. Being aggrieved by the same, as the compensation awarded by the First

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:39653 RSA NO.773 OF 2021

¶35

Appellate Court was meagre, plaintiffs preferred this Regular

¶36

Second Appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶37

This Court, by order dated 18^th September, 2024 formulated the following substantial question of law:

¶38

" Whether the compensation awarded by both

¶39

the Courts below is just and proper?"

¶40

Heard Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel appearing for appellant/plaintiffs and Sri. Sandesh T.B., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶41

Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that the award of compensation made by both the Courts below is inadequate as the deceased Prakash was only bread earner in the family of the deceased who died at the age of * 43 years leaving behind the minor child (plaintiff No.2). Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶42

Per contra, Sri. Sandesh T.B., learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BESCOM sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

¶43

Corrected vide Court Order dated:16.12.2024

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39653 RSA NO.773 OF 2021

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, late Prakash, husband of the plaintiff No.1 died on 17^th May, 2012 by stepping on the broken electric wire. The respondent-BESCOM had paid Rs.1,00,000/as compensation immediately after the death of the husband of the plaintiff No.1. On perusal of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, it not in dispute that the deceased was aged about * 43 years at the time of death due to electrocution. Therefore, following the law declared by Division Bench of this Court in the case of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.),

¶46

CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

¶47

CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. SMT. D.C.

¶48

BHAGYA AND ANOTHER made in Regular Appeal No.493 of 2019 decided on 17^th February, 2020, plaintiffs are entitled for compensation as under:

¶49

Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
Compensation awarded by the Trial Court	2,62,000-00
Compensation awarded by the First Appellate Court	5,41,000-00
As per Karnataka Legal Service Committee, the income to be taken considering the accident of year as 2012	7,000-00

¶50

Corrected vide Court Order dated :16.12.2024

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39653 RSA NO.773 OF 2021

¶52

40% future prospectus to be added to the Total Income	2,800-00
Total Income	9,800-00
Less: 1/3^rdincome to be deducted towards personal expenses	3,266-00
[A] Annual income (6,534 x 12 x 17)	13,32,936-00
[B] Towards consortium (40,000 x 2) (fortwo dependants)	80,000-00
[C] Funeral expenses	15,000-00
[D] Loss of estate	15,000-00
Total compensation [A]+[B]+[C]+[D]	14,42,936-00
Compensation awarded by the First Appellate Court	5,41,000-00
Enhanced Compensation by this Court	9,01,936-00

¶53

Taking into consideration the factual aspects on record that the appellants are entitled for just compensation in view of the judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case, the appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,42,936/- as shown above. Taking into account the fact that the respondentBESCOM had already paid compensation of Rs.5,41,000/- to the appellants in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, appellants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.9,01,936/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till realisation.

¶54

Page No.7 Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 16.12.2024.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:39653 RSA NO.773 OF 2021

¶57

Accordingly, substantial question of law favours the appellants. In the result, I pass the following:

¶58

O R D E R

¶59

1. Regular Second Appeal is allowed in-part;

¶60

1. Judgment and decree dated 08^th August, 2019 passed in Regular Appeal No.155 of 2017 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Tumakuru is modified;

¶61

1. Appellant/plaintiffs are entitled for total compensation of * Rs.14,42,936/- as against * Rs.9,01,936/- awarded by the First Appellate Court with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till realisation.

¶62

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶63

ARK

¶64

Corrected vide Court Order dated 16.12.2024

Neelamma v. Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Neelamma v. Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bheemaiah Vs Sri Hanumantharayappa

P Kannappa Vs M Chandan

K H Eshwarappa Vs Rathnamma

Chowdappa Vs Superintendent Engineer

Smt. Prema W/O Shivarudrappa Vs Smt H.L. Gowramma

Mudasir Pasha Vs Smt B Jayamma