Smt. Manjamma v. Superintendent of Engineer

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2025RFA/2361/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: electrocution death compensation; enhancement of compensation; CHESCOM; Section 96 CPC RFA; notional income Lok Adalat guidelines; 40% future prospects; 1/3 personal expenses deduction; filial consortium; funeral expenses; loss of estate; Pranay Sethi; Sarla Verma; Magma General Insurance; Executive Engineer v D.V. Bhagya; O.S.No.777/2019 Mysuru; interest 6% p.a.; no interest on appellate delay.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and decree dated 19.11.2021 in O.S.No.777/2019 modified; appellants entitled to additional compensation of Rs.10,51,800/- (over and above Rs.6,91,000/- already awarded by the Trial Court), carrying interest at 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till payment, with no interest for any delayed period in the appeal. ¶¶48

Smt. Manjamma Vs Superintendent of Engineer — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the quantum of compensation (Rs.6,91,000/-) awarded by the Trial Court for the death of late Krishnabovi due to electrocution was meager/inadequate and deserved enhancement. +1 more

¶¶32

Court's answer

Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, the compensation awarded by the Trial Court deserves to be re-worked and enhanced by taking into account the notional income of the deceased Krishnabovi and the principles of motor vehicle accident compensation laid down in Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma and Magma General Insurance.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

Notional income of the deceased taken as Rs.9,000/- p.m. (per Lok Adalat guidelines for 2015), increased by 40% towards future prospects (Rs.3,600/-), and reduced by 1/3rd towards personal expenses.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

Dependency computed as Rs.8,400 x 12 x 16 (multiplier 16 years) = Rs.16,12,800/-.ratio¶¶41
Conventional damages added: Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-, Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, and Filial Consortium Rs.1,00,000/- (wife Rs.40,000/- + two children Rs.60,000/-), bringing the total to Rs.17,42,800/-.ratio¶¶42
After deducting the Rs.6,91,000/- already awarded by the Trial Court from the recomputed total, the appellants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.10,51,800/- over and above the Trial Court award.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Electrocution-death compensation enhancement — RFA No.2361/2023 (RES), High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), S.R. Krishna Kumar J., oral judgment dated 24.03.2025. Widow and two minor children of late Krishnabovi (electrocuted 2015) appealed against the judgment/decree dated 19.11.2021 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru in O.S.No.777/2019, which had partly decreed their compensation claim against CHESCOM awarding only Rs.6,91,000/-. Re-working compensation per Pranay Sethi ((2017) 16 SCC 680), Sarla Verma (AIR 2009 SC 3104), Magma General Insurance ((2018) ACJ 2782 (SC)) and the Division Bench decision in Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Smt D.V. Bhagya (RFA No.493/2019, dd. 17.02.2020): notional income Rs.9,000 p.m. (Lok Adalat guidelines) + 40% future prospects − 1/3 personal expenses, x 12 x 16 = Rs.16,12,800; plus funeral Rs.15,000, loss of estate Rs.15,000, filial consortium Rs.1,00,000 = Rs.17,42,800 total; less Trial Court award = additional Rs.10,51,800 at 6% p.a. from date of institution of suit till payment; no interest on appellate delay. Appeal allowed; decree modified.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12436 RFA No. 2361 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 2361 OF 2023 (RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MANJAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNABOVI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶8

KUM. ASHA D/O LATE KRISHNABOVI AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS.

¶9

KUM. SOUJANYA D/O LATE KRISHNABOVI AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS.

¶10

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

PLAINTIFFS No.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESNETED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER i.e., APPELLANT No.1

¶13

ALL ARE R/O HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE KARIMUDDANAHALLI POST BILEKERE HOBLI HUNSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SUPERINTENDENT OF ENGINEER CHESCOM SRI HARSHA M.P.L COMPOUND

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:12436 RFA No. 2361 of 2023

¶20

MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.11.2021 PASSED IN OS No.777/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR COMPENSATION OF DAMAGES AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and

¶27

decree dated 19.11.2021 passed in O.S.No.777/2019 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 Krishnabovi due to electrocution in the year 2015 was partly decreed in favour of the appellants, thereby awarding compensation of Rs.6,91,000/- together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.

¶28

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

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12436 RFA No. 2361 of 2023

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

¶31

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

¶32

The material on record discloses that the appellants – plaintiffs being the wife and children of late Krishnabovi, who died as a result of electrocution in the year 2015, 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.6,91,000/- 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.

¶33

Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and

¶34

re-consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Trial

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12436 RFA No. 2361 of 2023

¶36

Court deserves to be re-worked and enhanced by taking into account the notional income of the deceased Krishnabovi 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 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) AND ANOTHER vs SMT D.V. BHAGYA AND ANOTHER in RFA No.493/2019 - DD 17.02.2020 .

¶37