Karnataka High Court
Renuka vs Superintendent Engineer on 18 March, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11328
RFA No. 160 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. 160 OF 2022 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. RENUKA
W/O LATE KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2. LIKITH
S/O LATE KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
3. HARSHA
S/O LATE KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
(SINCE 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PLAINTIFF RENUKA)
ALL ARE R/O K, MALLAPURA VILLAGE
HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
Digitally
signed by ...APPELLANTS
LEELAVATHI S (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
R
Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka
SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
O AND M CIRCLE OFFICER
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
CORPORAITON LTD
SANTHEPETE, B.M.ROAD
HASSAN - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11328
RFA No. 160 of 2022
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 4 RULE
1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.09.2018 PASSED IN O.S.
No.82/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HASSAN.
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 10.09.2018 passed in O.S.No.82/2016 by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan, whereby the said suit filed by
the appellants - plaintiffs for compensation on account of the
demise of one late Kumar due to electrocution in the year 2012
was partly decreed in favour of the appellants, thereby awarding
compensation of Rs.7,10,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a.
from the date of suit till realization.
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 - CESCOM and perused the material
on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:11328
4. The material on record discloses that the appellants -
plaintiffs being the wife and children of late Kumar, who died as a
result of electrocution in the year 2012, instituted the aforesaid suit
for compensation and other reliefs against the respondent -
defendant. The said suit was contested by the respondent -
CESCOM, 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.7,10,000/- by way of compensation to the appellants. 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 Kumar and bearing in
mind the principles related to payment of compensation in motor
vehicle accident cases as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
NC: 2025:KHC:11328
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 2012 as per
Lok Adalat guidelines Rs.7,000/- p.m.
40% future prospects Rs.2,800/-
(-) 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.3266/-
Annual income = Rs.6534 x 12 x 16 = Rs.12,54,528/-
Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/-
Filial Consortium = Rs. 1,00,000/-
(wife=40,000/- + 2 sons = 60,000/-)
NC: 2025:KHC:11328
TOTAL = Rs.13,84,528/-
(-)Compensation awarded by Trial Court = Rs.7,10,000/-
Balance payable = Rs. 6,74,528/-
7. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 10.09.2018
passed in O.S.No.82/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Hassan, is hereby modified.
(iii) Appellants are entitled to additional compensation of
Rs.6,74,528/- in addition to Rs.7,10,000/- already awarded by the
Trial Court.
(iv) Additional compensation of Rs.6,74,528/- 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
BMC
