Partly allowed

Secretary,K.S.E.B. v. Mattumal Saudamini

Kerala HC13 Jan 2011RFA/139/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial court for the deceased son's death due to electrocution. The High Court applied Supreme Court precedents to recalculate dependency loss using a multiplier of 14 and adjusted heads of compensation. The decree was modified to Rs. 2,60,000 after deducting insurance proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Decree modified to award Rs. 2,60,000 to the plaintiff with adjusted interest rates; excess amount deposited by the Board to be reimbursed.

Secretary,K.S.E.B. Vs Mattumal Saudamini — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932

¶5

RFA.No. 139 of 2006

¶6

--------------------CS.18/2003 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY

¶7

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS

¶8

¶9

THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KOLLANDY SOUTH, CHEMMANCHERRY, KOLLANDY, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB

¶12

RESPONDENT: PLAINTIFF

¶13

¶14

MATTUMAL SAUMINI, W/O.VENU, THIRUVANGUR DESOM, KOLLANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶15

ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.SANU S.PANICKER FOR R1

¶16

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.N. KRISHNAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.F.A. NO. 139 OF 2006

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = = DATED THIS, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011.

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

M.N. Krishnan, J.

¶22

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Koilandy in O.S. No. 18 of 2003. The unfortunate case arises out of the death of one Shiji aged 24 years because of electrocution. The plaintiff before the court is the mother of the deceased Shiji. The defendants are the Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board and its officers. It is contended in the plaint that the longevity of the life is 75 years and there was very good future prospects for the son and therefore, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was claimed as compensation for the loss of the life of the son and an additional amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was claimed for the mental agony, totalling a claim of Rs. 5,00,000- as compensation.

¶23

The defendants, on the other hand, would contend that there was no negligence on their part and it was on account of the negligence of the deceased himself that the death took place. The deceased, according to the defendants, was working as an apprentice earning only a paltry sum and that

¶24

RFA 139/2006 2

¶25

an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid to the family of the deceased by way of insurance amount. The trial court, on a consideration of the entire materials, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 4,19,000/- as compensation and further to adjust an amount of Rs.50,000/- received by the family of the deceased by way of insurance amount in the compensation payable. It is against that decision, the Electricity Board has come up in appeal.

¶26

The principal point that is argued before us is on the quantum that is awarded. Therefore, we are only now concerned about the correctness of the quantum that is awarded by the trial court. According to the plaintiff, the deceased was having a daily income of Rs. 250/- whereas the Kerala State Electricity Board would contend that he was only an apprentice and therefore, he cannot get that much of income. The trial court in para 8 of the judgment held that the deceased Shiji could have received Rs. 60 per day as stipend or allowance for having been employed as apprentice under PW.2 Krishnan, who was the proprietor of Bijli Electrical Works, Thiruvangur. Accordingly, the trial court, took Rs. 1,800/ - as the monthly income and then found that Rs. 21,900/- is the annual income and multiplied it by ten years and arrived at a figure of Rs. 2,19,000/- and further awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony

¶27

RFA 139/2006 3

¶28

undergone by her in the wake of the accident. Both these findings are challenged by the Kerala State Electricity Board. In the process of trial much water has flown on the method of calculation and especially within the parameters. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the latest decision in Sarla Varma's case (2009 ACJ 1298) has fixed the multiplier to be used in such cases. In order to fix the multiplier what should be the relevant consideration, is the first point. Now here is a bachelor aged 24 years who has got a mother in between the age of 41 - 46 as the legal heir. So it is very relevant to consider the age of the dependent who has come before the court for the purpose of taking the multiplier. In Sarla Varma' s case (supra) the multiplier for the age group 41- 46 was fixed as 14 by the Honourable Supreme Court. So, when it is considered as the multiplier and the income is taken as Rs. 1,800/- per month and when one third is deducted for the personal expenses and when it is multiplied with 14, the loss of dependency compensation would come to Rs. 2,01,600/-. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in Gobald Motor Service v. Veluswami (AIR 1962 SC 1) had considered the heads under which compensation can be given. The court also considered whether there is any duplication while applying Sections 1 and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. It was held that in awarding compensation under both the heads, there shall

¶29

RFA 139/2006

¶30

¶31

not be duplication of the same claim, that is, if any part of the compensation representing the loss to the estate goes into the calculation of the personal loss under Section 1, the same amount cannot be granted under Section 2. But the Court very clearly laid down that compensation can be granted for mental agony suffering and loss of expectation of life. Normally, a conventional amount is also given for the loss of estate. So taking into consideration these principles, we feel that the plaintiff can be awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and suffering and Rs. 3,000/towards funeral expenses, making it to Rs. 2,59,600/-, which we rounded as Rs. 2,60,000/- ( Rupees Two lakhs sixty thousand only). Needless to say that Rs. 50,000/- already directed to be deposited, which has been received by the plaintiff as insurance amount has also to be deducted.

¶32

In the result, the judgment and decree of the trial court are modified and the plaintiff is given a decree for realisation of Rs. 2,60,000/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty thousand only) with 12% interest on the said sum from the date of suit till the date of decree namely, 8.4.2005 and at the rate of 6% from that day till realisation. Needless to say that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which is already given shall be given credit to and only the balance need be deposited by the Kerala State Electricity Board. It is seen that as a

¶33

RFA 139/2006

¶34

¶35

condition for granting stay, this Court had directed the Board to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- which they have complied with. It is submitted that the Board had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,22,529/- before the court below before passing of the stay order by this Court in order to avoid attachment of their property and hence there is excess amount. We direct that other than the amount which the plaintiff is entitled to under the decree, the balance amount shall be reimbursed to the Kerala State Electricity Board on appropriate application.

¶36

It is submitted that the plaintiff has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Whatever may be the total amount, the plaintiff shall not be directed to reimburse any amount which she had withdrawn.

¶37

M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE)

¶38

P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE)

¶39

knc/-

Secretary,K.S.E.B. v. Mattumal Saudamini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secretary,K.S.E.B. v. Mattumal Saudamini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.K.P.Appukuttan Vs the Malabar Devaswom Board

E.Subramanian Iyer Vs Laiju Jose

Vinod Kumar Vs Anil Kumar

State Vs N. Girijakumari

Hydru Haji Vs Snchan George

V.P.Aboobacker Vs Naushad.K.P.