Evidently, both the courts below on question of fact found that there was negligence on the part of the appellants in maintaining the electrical wires. The cause of death was due to the electric shock is not disputed. When the deceased was a minor boy, there cannot be any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In this case, evidently, the appellants have not challenged the judgment in A.S.No.58 of 2006 whereunder the enhancement of compensation was made. Evidently, A.S.No.74 of 2006 is confined only to the judgment of granting of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- only. Therefore, the appellants cannot challenge the judgment in A.S.No.58 of 2006 questioning the enhancement when no appeal is preferred against the said judgment. So far as the negligence is concerned, since there is a finding of the fact by the both courts, there is no compelling reason to interfere with the findings of the court below. But, however, as can be seen from the record, the interest was granted at 12% and it is by practice that in cases of death by negligence in motor accident cases, only 7.5% interest i.e., which was granted by the appellate court. However, as can be seen from the record, the deceased was survived by the father. There is no reason as to why the father was not added as a party to the proceedings.
