IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 RFA.No. 370 OF 2008() --------------------- OS.134/2003 OF ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYTHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4 --------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHA, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.K.VELU KAITHATTU HOUSE, VAIKOM TALUK, NADUVILE VILLAGE, PADINJAREKKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SYAMALA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.P.K.VELU, KAITHATTU HOUSE, VAIKOM TALUK, NADUVILE VILLAGE, PADINJAREKKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. USHA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.K.VELU, KAITHATTU HOUSE, VAIKOM TALUK, NADUVILE VILLAGE, PADINJAREKKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. MINI, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.K.VELU, KAITHATTU HOUSE, VAIKOM TALUK, NADUVILE VILLAGE, PADINJAREKKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. K.N.SURENDRAN, OVERSEER, K.S.E.B. SUB ENGINEER OFFICE, KALLARA, KALLARA, P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. :2: RFA 370/2008 6. PRADEEP KUMAR, KUTTIKATTUKARA HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. CURIAC LUKOSE, ASSISTANMT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ELECTGRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.B. VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.F.A. NO. 370 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Kottayam, in O.S. 134/2003. 2. The appellant was the first defendant in the suit. The suit was instituted by the legal heirs of one Velu who died due to electric shock. It is claiming compensation under various heads that the suit was instituted. The plaintiffs claimed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of compensation. However, the court below passed a decree only for an amount of Rs. 2,66,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Out of the amount so awarded, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- already paid was also deducted and virtually a decree was passed only for the balance amount. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that on 7.8.2000 at about 5.45 p.m. while Velu was proceeding through Kaniyanthara road he got into touch with live electric line which was broken and lying down as a result of which RFA 370/2008 :2: he was electrocuted. The incident took place due to the negligence and carelessness of the Electricity Board and its officials. Velu was the sole bread winner of his family consisting of his wife and children, who are the plaintiffs in the suit. It is stated that Velu was getting an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month and he was only 58 years of age at the time of death. 4. In the written statement, the defendants admitted that Velu was electrocuted. But they denied that there was any negligence or dereliction of duty on their part. According to them, they could not have done anything to prevent or avoid the alleged accident which took place in a narrow road having only 8 feet width filled with loose soil. According to them, heavy traffic of lorries though the road pushed the electric post in the narrow road to the extreme side causing one conductor to touch with the coconut tree at random, while the lorries are plying. The accident occurred in a monsoon season and due to heavy rain and wind the conductor had broken. Sufficient line men were not available at the relevant time at that section and there is no negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the defendants. The electric line where the accident occurred was properly maintained after complying with all the legal formalities and according to them no complaint was received nor any abnormality in the electric line was realised on RFA 370/2008 :3: enquiry after the accident. 5. The court below framed necessary issues. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A10 on the side of the plaintiffs. The 4th defendant was examined as DW.1 besides marking Ext. B1, on the defendants' side. The court below found that Velu was electrocuted due to the negligence, carelessness and breach of duty on the part of the defendants. It proceeded to quantify the amount of damages payable and based on the analysis of the evidence on record and applying the factors relevant in quantifying the amount, has awarded compensation under different heads which will come to Rs. 2,66,000/-. The first defendant Electricity Board challenges the said decree. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. According to him, the deceased was aged 60 years at the time of death and his probable income assessed by the court below at Rs.3,000/- is on a higher side. It was also contended that one third of the amount ought to have been deducted and only the balance taken for the purpose of calculating the compensation to be awarded. 7. We have anxiously considered this contention. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed that the deceased was getting a monthly income of Rs. RFA 370/2008 :4: 4,000/-. According to the court below, the claim of Rs. 4,000/- made by the plaintiffs is not an exorbitant one since even an ordinary man doing some unskilled work can expect a daily wage of Rs. 160/- per day and since Velu was a skilled man, he may get Rs. 200 per day. According to PWs 2 and 3 examined by the plaintiffs and ccording to the Panchayat President, Velu was getting a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/-. Though an income certificate issued by the Panchayat President was produced, the court below was not prepared to accept the same and on a reasonable and fair assessment, the income of the deceased was fixed as Rs. 150/- per day and taking 20 days work in a month as a normal method, his monthly income was assessed as Rs. 3,000/-. A multiplier of 6 was adopted and compensation was calculated as Rs. 2,66,000/-. True that no amount was deducted from the assessed income towards the expenses which the deceased would have incurred. We would have perhaps interfered with this; but we refrain from doing so since the multiplier taken is only 6. Further, the normal life span quite reasonablly stated to be 70 in the present condition. The assessment of damages under various other heads also were examined by us; but it cannot be said that the assessment was done in an arbitrary way. With the available evidence on record, and taking into RFA 370/2008 :5: consideration of the family set up of the deceased as also his age, we find that the overall amount fixed by way of compensation is quite reasonable and no interference is called for. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-