Dismissed

K.S.E.B v. Kunhammad.C.

Kerala HC1 Jan 2013RFA/483/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by KSEB against a fatal accident compensation decree was dismissed. The bench affirmed the lower court's finding of negligence regarding a deceased child electrocuted by a hanging wire and upheld the compensation quantum while modifying the court fee recovery direction.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with costs. The direction to realize court fee from the plaintiffs is modified; the fee shall be paid by KSEB.

K.S.E.B Vs Kunhammad.C. — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/11TH POUSHA 1934

¶6

RFA.No. 483 of 2008 ( )

¶7

OS.239/2005 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY.

¶8

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶9

1. THE SECRETARY, K.S.E. BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E. BOARD, THALASSERY.

¶11

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E. BOARD, MATTANUR.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶14

1. KUNHAMMAD C., S/O.AHAMADKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, C.K. MANZIL, KOKKAYILE, VAYANTHODE DESOM, KOLARI AMSOM, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶15

2. ALIMA M.P., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.KUNHAMMAD, NO OCCUPATION, C.K. MANZIL, KOKKAYILE, VAYANTHODE DESOM, KOLARI AMSOM THALASSERY TALUK.

¶16

3. MUNAVEERA M.P., D/O.KUNHAMMAD, (MINOR AGED 8 YEARS).

¶17

4. MUNAVEER M.P., S/O.KUNHAMMAD, (MINOR 6 YEARS).

¶18

5. AJMAL M.P., D/O.KUNHAMMAD (MINOR 4 ¾ YEARS) MINOR RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 2ND RESPONDENT ALIMA M.P.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶20

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rs.

¶22

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶24

R.F.A No.483 of 2008

¶25

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1^st day of January, 2013

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

¶28

This appeal is by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) against a

¶29

decree granted under the Fatal Accidents Act.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶31

One Muhammed Sali @ Sali M.P., then aged 11 years, died of electrocution at about 4.45 p.m. while returning from school on 1.7.2003. He was then studying at Government U.P.School, Mattannur. When he reached the pathway, he came into contact with an electric line which lay hanging on to the road and as a result, he was thrown away due to electric shock. The death was instantaneous. The persons in the locality took the boy to Lakshmi Memorial Hospital and later to Thalassery hospital. The boy was declared dead when it was brought to the Government Hospital, Kuthuparamba.

¶32

RFA483/08

¶33

-:2:-

¶34

While the plaintiffs who are the parents and siblings of Sali attributed negligence to the Board, the defence plea was that there was no negligence and that an amount of `50,000/- was paid as per the Vyduthi Sureksha Insurance Scheme in 2000, in full and final settlement.

¶35

In our view, the court below rightly relied on the precedent in KSEB v. Kamalakshi Amma [1986 KLT 1124] to hold that when the plaintiffs succeeded in proving that a pedestrian was electrocuted from a live wire hanging down from an electric post, there is a presumption of fact that there was lack of proper care on the part of those in the management or control of the power supply at the particular place. Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding as to negligence.

¶36

On to the question of the quantum of compensation, the court below has granted 2,50,000/- as compensation after deducting the amount of 50,000/-, as it was already paid as ex gratia. We do not find any infirmity, either in law or in evidence. The award of interest is also in accordance with law.

¶37

In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout. Following the decision in Joseph v. Kerala State Electricity

¶38

-:3:-

¶39

RFA483/08

¶40

Board and another [2012 (4) KHC 753 (DB)], the direction of the court below to realise the court fee due on the plaint from the plaintiffs is, however, modified and it is directed that the court fee that the plaintiffs had to pay on the plaint shall be paid by the KSEB and on failure, it shall be realised from the KSEB.

¶41

sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶42

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶43

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶44

krj4/1

K.S.E.B v. Kunhammad.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.E.B v. Kunhammad.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shibu Vs State Bank of Travancore

Shaji.K Vs Rejula.S

M/S.Elgies,R Ep.by Managing Partner Vs M/S.Swastika Auto Colour

M/S.Varma Road Ways, Kochi Vs Kishore Rubber & Chemicals Ltd.

M/S.Poyyeri Traders Vs S.M.Hyrunneesa

Augastine M.J. Vs Karthikeyan