Unknown vs Smt. Jhunu Gouda & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 14387 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           R.S.A. No.380 of 2018
         In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of
   Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2018 &
   05.05.2018 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam,
   Berhampur in R.F.A. No.28 of 2013 setting aside the judgment and
   decree dated 14.03.2013 & 21.03.2013 respectively passed by the
   learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Berhampur in C.S. No.395 of
   2010.
                                   ----

The Vice-President, Authorized .... Appellant Officer, SOUTHCO Utility, Berhampur

-versus-

Smt. Jhunu Gouda & Others .... Respondents

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Appellant - Mr.P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Mr.D.N.Mohapatra, Smt.J.Mohanty, P.K. Nayak, S.N.Dash, P.K. Pasayat and P.Mohanty (Advocates)

For Respondents - Ms.Deepali Mohapatra, (Advocate for R.1) CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing: 16.10.2023 : Date of Judgment: 13.11.2023

D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section 100 of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the

R.S.A. No.380 of 2018 {{ 2 }}

judgment and decree dated 21.04.2018 & 05.05.2018 respectively

passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in R.F.A.

No. 28 of 2013.

The Respondent as the Plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.395 of

2010 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Berhampur claiming

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 12% from the Appellant

(Defendant). The suit stood decreed directing the Appellant

(Defendant) to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 6%

per annum from that date of filing of the suit. The Respondent

(Plaintiff) being aggrieved by the same, had filed Appeal under

section 96 of the Code which has been allowed in part. The First

Appellate Court has directed the Appellant (Defendant) to pay a sum

of Rs.3,72,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing

of the suit i.e. on 17.09.2010 till actual payment.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and

bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they

have been arraigned in the Suit.

3. The Appeal has been admitted to answer the following

substantial question of law:-

"Whether the First Appellate Court is right in enhancing the quantum of compensation, as had been awarded by the Trial Court, by assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.2700/- instead of Rs.1500/- as held by the Trial Court by differing with the Trial Court that such

R.S.A. No. 380 of 2018 {{ 3 }}

income for eight months is to be taken into account for the whole year?"

4. Heard Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the

Appellant and Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel for

the Appellant on the ground taken by the First Appellate Court in

enhancing the compensation as well as the rate of interest over the

awarded compensation.

5. Keeping in view the submissions made, the judgment of the

First Appellate Court being carefully gone through, it is seen that the

Trial Court, having assessed the income of the Ranka Gouda

(deceased) who died on account of electrocution due to the

negligence on the part of the employees of the Defendant No.1 at

Rs.1500/- per month, the First Appellate Court has assessed the same

at Rs.2700/- per month and accordingly, computing the annual

income of the deceased, has determined the compensation by

disagreeing with the view of the Trial Court that for assessing the

yearly income giving a break of four months is not proper.

Accordingly, selecting the proper multiplier of fourteen (14) for the

age group of the deceased, adding the reasonable sum towards loss

of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses has awarded a sum

of Rs.3,72,000/- towards compensation holding it to be just and

proper.

R.S.A. No. 380 of 2018 {{ 4 }}

The First Appellate Court has assessed the monthly income of

the deceased, who was working as a labouerer by taking cue from the

minimum wage prescribed by the Government of Odisha as was then

prevailing. When the Trial Court had not taken that into account, the

First Appellate Court in doing so in my considered view is wholly

justified in doing so. That apart, the Trial Court had taken a view that

while calculating the annual income of the deceased, four months

have to be taken to be the period without work as it ordinarily

happens in cases of said labourers. That being done without any

evidence on record, the First Appellate Court has taken a view that

people hailing from poor status in the society living on daily wages

seldom have the luxury to sit idle unless there stands an extremely

compelling circumstance which in the case has not been shown. The

above view appears to be quite sound when the view taken by the

Trial Court, was without any basis. In that view of the matter, this

Court finds the enhancement quantum of compensation made by the

First Appellate Court from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.3,72,000/- is wholly

justified and in my view no such wrong has been committed by the

First Appellate Court.

However, it is seen that when the Trial Court had awarded

interest over the compensation amount @ 6% per annum from the

date of institution of the suit i.e. on 17.09.2010 till payment, the First

Appellate Court has enhanced the rate of interest to 12% per annum.

R.S.A. No. 380 of 2018 {{ 5 }}

It was submitted at the Bar that after disposal of the suit, the decretal

dues had been paid to the Plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, while

enhancing the rate of interest, appears to have given no such reason.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the First

Appellate court having enhanced the quantum of compensation

ought not to have enhanced the rate of interest from 6% to 12% per

annum. Thus, the substantial question of law is answered by saying

that the First Appellate Court did commit no mistake in enhancing

the quantum of compensation to Rs.3,72,000/- except enhancing the

rate of interest from 6% awarded by the Trial Court to 12% per

annum.

6. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part and in the peculiar

circumstances without cost. The Defendant No.1 is held liable to pay

compensation of Rs.3,72,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy-Two

Thousand) to the Plaintiff with interest @ 6% per annum with effect

from 17.09.2010. The amount of compensation already received by

the Defendant No.1 be accordingly deducted from the total

compensation and the balance if any be paid to the Plaintiff by

Defendant No.1 within three months hence failing which the interest

@15% will run from today.

Signature Not Verified                                             (D. Dash),
Digitally Signed                                                     Judge.
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
               Gitanjali
Date: 15-Nov-2023   15:07:57


                   R.S.A. No. 380 of 2018