Karnataka High Court
Sannaiah vs Superintendent Engineer on 24 March, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12431
RFA No. 2115 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 2115 OF 2023 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SANNAIAH
S/O LATE KARIYAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. ROOPA
D/O SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
3. THIRTHESH
S/O SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O HANDRALU
BARE MANE COLONY VILLAGE
MADIHALLI HOBLI
BELUR TALUK
Digitally
signed by HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
NIRMALA ...APPELLANTS
DEVI
Location: (BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
KARYA & PALANA CIRLCE
CHAMUNDESHWARI POWER SUPPLY
BOARD LTD, SANTEPETE HASSAN
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
2. CHIEF SECRETARIES
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12431
RFA No. 2115 of 2023
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.07.2018 PASSED IN
OS.No.153/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
DAMAGES AND ETC.,
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 07.07.2018 passed in O.S.No.153/2016 by the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, whereby the said
suit filed by the appellants - plaintiffs for compensation on account
of the demise of one late Dinesh due to electrocution in the year
2011 was partly decreed in favour of the appellants, thereby
awarding compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- 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.
NC: 2025:KHC:12431
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the respondent - CESCOM and perused the material
on record.
4. The material on record discloses that the appellants -
plaintiffs being the father, sister and brother of late Dinesh, 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 - 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.4,62,000/- 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
NC: 2025:KHC:12431
Court deserves to be re-worked and enhanced by taking into
account the notional income of the deceased Dinesh 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
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/-
(-) 1/2nd towards personal expenses Rs.4550/-
NC: 2025:KHC:12431
Annual income = Rs.4550 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 9,82,800/-
Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/-
Filial Consortium = Rs. 90,000/-
(father, brother, sister= 3x30,000/-)
TOTAL = Rs.11,02,800/-
(-)Compensation awarded by Trial Court = Rs.4,62,000/-
Balance payable = Rs. 6,40,800/-
7. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 07.07.2018
passed in O.S.No.153/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Hassan, is hereby modified.
(iii) Appellants are entitled to additional compensation of
Rs.6,40,800/- in addition to Rs.4,62,000/- already awarded by the
Trial Court.
(iv) Additional compensation of Rs.6,40,800/- shall carry
interest at 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till
payment.
NC: 2025:KHC:12431
(v) However, the appellants are not entitled to any interest for
the delayed period, if any, in the appeal.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
ND
