Karnataka High Court
Kumari Divya vs The Superintendent Of Engineer on 18 March, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11419
RFA No. 144 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2022 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT MYTHRI
W/O LT T S SIDDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
2. S AMRUTH
S/O LT T S SIDDARAJU
AGED 9 YEARS
3. SANJAY
S/O LT T S SIDDARAJU
AGED 7 YEARS
SINCE 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
1ST PLAINTIFF SMT. MYTHRI.
ALL ARE R/O THAMMADHAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK
Digitally MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
signed by ...APPELLANTS
LEELAVATHI S
R (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CHESCOM LIMITED - MANDYA
MANDYA DIST- 571 401
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.01.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO. 115/2016
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM.,
MANDYA PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11419
RFA No. 144 of 2022
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and
decree dated 24.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.115/2016 by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, whereby the said
suit filed by the appellants - plaintiffs for compensation on account
of the demise of one late T.S. Siddaraju due to electrocution in the
year 2011 was partly decreed in favour of the appellants, thereby
awarding compensation of Rs.9,81,800/- together with interest at
6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization, in addition to Rs.1 lakh
already received by them from the respondents.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
seeking enhancement of the compensation aggrieved by the
impugned judgment and decree.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the respondent - CHESCOM and perused the material
on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:11419
4. The material on record discloses that the appellants -
plaintiffs being the wife and children of late T.S. Siddaraju, who
died as a result of electrocution in the year 2011, 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.9,81,800/- by way of compensation to the
appellants, in addition to Rs.1 lakh already received by them from
the respondents. 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.
5. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and
re-consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the
considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Trial
Court deserves to be re-worked and enhanced by taking into
account the notional income of the deceased T.S. Siddaraju and
bearing in mind the principles related to payment of compensation
NC: 2025:KHC:11419
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.
6. Under this circumstances, the compensation payable
in favour of appellants/plaintiffs is to be worked as under:
Notional Income in 2011 as per
Lok Adalat guidelines Rs.6,500/- p.m.
40% future prospects Rs.2,600/-
(-) 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.3034/-
Annual income = Rs.6066 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 12,37,464/-
Towards consortium
(wife = 40,000/- and
Two sons: 30,000 x 2 =60,000/ = Rs. 1,00,000/-
Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC:11419
Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/-
TOTAL = Rs.13,67,2464/-
(-)Compensation awarded by Trial Court = Rs.9,81,800/-
(-)Compensation already received = Rs.1,00,000/-
Balance payable = Rs. 2,85,664/-
7. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 24.01.2018
passed in O.S.No.115/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Mandya, is hereby modified.
(iii) Appellants are entitled to additional compensation of
Rs.2,85,664/- in addition to Rs.9,81,800/- already awarded by the
Trial Court.
(iv) Additional compensation of Rs.2,85,664/- shall carry
interest at 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till
payment.
(v) However, the appellants are not entitled to any interest for
the delayed period in the appeal.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
