THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.1365 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The appellants filed O.S.No.92 of 2000 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, claiming a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation against the respondents. It was pleaded that Shaik Mahboob Basha, husband of the first appellant, father of the 2nd appellant and son of the 3rd appellant was working by the side of a transformer at Holmespet on 04.11.1997 and suddenly the transformer bursted resulting in spilling over of the oil on Mahboob Basha. Crime No.33 of 1997 was registered against the respondents. Mahaboob Basha died on 08.11.1997 while undergoing treatment. They pleaded negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining the transformer. The respondents filed a written statement opposing the suit. They pleaded that it is an act of God and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for through the judgment, dated 04.10.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S.No.5 of 2005 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. The appeal was partly allowed through judgment, dated 13.02.2008 and the compensation was reduced to 50,000/-. The same is challenged in this second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. The trial Court framed one issue for its consideration, on the basis of the pleadings before it viz., whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation as prayed for? On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court found that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining the transformer and awarded compensation as prayed for. The lower appellate Court framed only one point for its consideration, which is almost similar to the issue framed by the trial Court. On the question of negligence, it concurred with the finding recorded by the trial Court and in fact, added additional reasons. However, it reduced the compensation to Rs.50,000/- just with the following reason: “However, there is negligence on part of the deceased and others, in working in a premises, so close to the transformer. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- as claimed in the suit, ought not to have been granted. From the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the plaintiffs made out a case for compensation. Minimum compensation of Rs.50,000/- as envisaged in the Motor Vehicles Act can be granted in this case also. Accordingly, the amount of compensation is limited to Rs.50,000/-. The point is held accordingly.” There is absolutely no basis for the lower appellate Court in refusing the compensation. It is not as if any factors such as age and income of the deceased were re- appreciated and a finding was recorded. Further, no justification was indicated as to how the amount of Rs.50,000/- is adequate. Viewed from any angle, the judgment of the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment of the lower appellate Court insofar as it reduced the compensation is set aside. Consequently, the decree passed by the trial Court is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 09.11.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.1365 of 2008 Date: 09.11.2009 JSU