Karnataka High Court
Mamatha vs Executive Engineer on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
R.S.A NO.159 OF 2022(RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MAMATHA
W/O LATE ARUNKUMAR
AGED 38 YEARS
2. HARSHAVARDHAN
S/O LATE ARUNKUMAR
AGED 16 YEARS
3. HARSHITHA
D/O LATE ARUNKUMAR
AGED 14 YEARS
PLAINTIFF 2 AND D3 ARE MINORS
REP BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST PETITIONER
ALL ARE R/AT BARAGIHALLI VILLAGE
HANDANAKERE HOBLI
CN HALLI TQ, TUMKURU DIST-572101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BESCOM,
TIPTUR, TUMKURU DIST-572101
2. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
BESCOM, O AND M CIRCLE
OLD KOTHITHOPU ROAD
TUMKURU-572101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
25.10.2019 PASSED IN RA.No.10047/2017 ON THE FILE
OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TIPTUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.07.2016 PASSED IN
OS No.30/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, TIPTUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The appeal is admitted to consider the
following substantial question of law:
"Whether the Appellate Court erred
in taking future prospects at 30%
when admittedly the deceased was
aged 28 years and therefore, future
prospects has to be added at the rate
of 40% in the light of the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company .vs.
Pranay Sethi and others reported
in 2017 ACJ 2700?"
3. With the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties, the captioned appeal is taken up for final
hearing.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties
are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
5. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the
defendants seeking compensation by way of damage
for having lost one Arunkumar, who is none other
than the husband of first plaintiff and father of
plaintiffs 2 and 3. The plaintiffs claimed that husband
of first plaintiff came in contact with live electric wire
which was lying on the ground on account of lapse of
duty on the part of defendants in not maintaining the
cable from time to time. On the unfortunate day i.e.
on 9.7.2012 while the deceased had gone for nature
call near poultry farm of Jabiulla, he came in contact
with a live cable wire and died at the spot due to
electrocution. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit
seeking compensation.
5(b) The plaintiffs to substantiate their claim let
in evidence and produced copy of FIR for having
registered the complaint. The plaintiffs have also
produced the charge sheet indicating that the
concerned officials were charge sheeted for the
offence. To counter the claim of plaintiffs, the
defendants except leading oral evidence have not
adduced documentary evidence.
5(c) The Trial Court having examined the
evidence on record found that defendants' officials
were found to be negligent which had resulted in the
death of Arunkumar on account of electrocution.
5(d) While determining the quantum, the Trial
Court has taken the notional income at Rs.4,500/- and
adding 50% towards future prospects has taken the
total income of the deceased at Rs.81,000/-. After
deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and
adopting the multiplier of 16, the Trial Court has
awarded Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of dependency
and loss of estate. Under conventional heads, the Trial
Court has awarded Rs.75,000/-. Thus, the Trial Court
in all awarded Rs.9,39,000/- with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum.
5(e) On an appeal, the Appellate Court though
enhanced the compensation however did not notice
the age of the deceased. The Appellate Court
assessed the income notionally at Rs.7,000/- and by
adding 30% towards future prospects has enhanced
the compensation by Rs.2,08,060/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum.
5(f) Feeling aggrieved by the inadequate
compensation determined by the Appellate Court, the
plaintiffs are before this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs
and the learned counsel for the defendants. Perused
the material on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the incident has
occurred on 9.7.2012. Admittedly, the deceased was
aged 40 years as on the date of the accident.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Appellate
Court having notionally assessed the income at
Rs.7,000/- p.m. erred in adding 30% towards future
prospects instead of 40% in the light of the judgment
rendered in the case of National Insurance
Company .vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 reported
in 2017 ACJ 2700. Therefore, if 40% is added, the
total income works out to Rs.9,800/- per month.
Deducting 1/3rd personal expenses, the income is
taken at Rs.6,534/- and adopting appropriate
multiplier of 16, the total compensation payable under
the head of loss of dependency works out to
Rs.12,54,528/-. Under conventional heads, in view
of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
RFA.No.493/2019 disposed of on 17.2.2020, the
plaintiffs are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- under
conventional heads. Therefore, the total
compensation works out to Rs.13,84,528/- as against
Rs.9,39,000/- awarded by the Trial Court. Therefore,
this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs are entitled
to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,45,528/-.
Deducting Rs.1,00,000/- paid towards ex-gratia and
Rs.2,08,060/- paid by the respondents after disposal
2017 ACJ 2700
of the appeal by the Appellate Court, the plaintiffs are
held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,37,468/- with interest
at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of
realization. Accordingly, the substantial question of
law is answered in the affirmative.
8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-
