Smt. Mani Vs Superintendent Engineer

C.S. ROJA D/O LATE C.K. SHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS. PLAINTIFFS No.3 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER i.e. APPELLANT No.1 ALL ARE R/O CHIKKA KOPPALU VILLAGE CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI K.R. NAGARA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602. …APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER CHESCOM, SRI. HARSHA ROAD M.P.L. COMPOUND, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12434 RFA No. 2218 of 2023

¶15

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2021 PASSED IN OS No.188/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND ETC.,

¶16

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

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.10.2021 passed in O.S.No.188/2018 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, whereby the said suit filed by the appellants – plaintiffs for compensation on account of the demise of one late C.K.Shekar due to electrocution in the year 2014 was partly decreed in favour of the appellants, thereby awarding compensation of Rs.6,83,000/- together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.

¶19

This appeal is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking enhancement of the compensation aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree.

¶20

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12434 RFA No. 2218 of 2023

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent – CHESCOM and perused the material on record.

¶22

The material on record discloses that the appellants – plaintiffs being the wife and children of late C.K.Shekar, who died as a result of electrocution in the year 2014, instituted the aforesaid suit for compensation and other reliefs against the respondent – defendant. The said suit was contested by the respondent – CHESCOM, pursuant to which, the Trial Court framed the issues and after recording oral and documentary evidence of both sides, proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree awarding Rs.6,83,000/- by way of compensation to the appellants. It is the grievance of the appellants that the quantum of compensation awarded is meager and inadequate and as such, they are before this Court by way of the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶23

Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and

¶24

re-consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Trial Court deserves to be re-worked and enhanced by taking into

¶25

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12434 RFA No. 2218 of 2023

¶26

account the notional income of the deceased C.K.Shekar and bearing in mind the principles related to payment of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680; SARLA VERMA vs DELHI TRANSPORT COPORATION reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) ) . The said principle directing payment of compensation in electrocution related death cases has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

¶27

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) AND ANOTHER vs SMT D.V. BHAGYA AND ANOTHER in RFA No.493/2019 - DD 17.02.2020 .

¶28

Under this circumstances, the compensation payable

¶29

in favour of appellants/plaintiffs is to be worked as under:

¶30

Notional Income in 2014 as per Lok Adalat guidelines Rs.8,500/- p.m. 40% future prospects Rs.3,400/(-) 1/3^rd towards personal expenses Rs.3,966/-

¶31

Annual income = Rs.7934 x 12 x 16 = Rs.15,23,328/-

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12434 RFA No. 2218 of 2023

¶33

Funeral Expenses = Rs.	15,000/-
Loss of estate = Rs.	15,000/-
Filial Consortium = Rs.	1,00,000/-
(wife=40,000/- + children (2) = 2x30,000/-)

¶34

TOTAL = Rs.16,53,328/-

¶35

(-)Compensation awarded by Trial Court = Rs.6,83,000/Balance payable = Rs. 9,70,328/-

¶36

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed .

¶39

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 29.10.2021 passed in O.S.No.188/2018 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, is hereby modified.

¶40

(iii) Appellants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.9,70,328/- in addition to Rs.6,83,000/- already awarded by the Trial Court.

¶41

(iv) Additional compensation of Rs.9,70,328/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till payment.

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:12434 RFA No. 2218 of 2023

¶43