IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAiAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 BEFORE THE HON!BLE MRJUSTICE RAM MORAN REDDY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No/16 1/2006 C/w CROSS OBJECPIONS 22/06 RFA No.461/2006: BETWEEN: 1. The Asst. Executive Engineer, KI1CL, now HESCOM, Muddebihal 586212. 2. The Executive Engineer KVFCL, now HESCOM, Bijapur 586 101. ..Appellants (By Sn R S Paffi, Adv) AND: 1. Yaflawwa, Wife of Parappa Mvageri, Aged About 28 yeais, 0cc: Coolie 2. Parasappa, Son of Parappa Myageri, Aged about 10 years 0cc: Student. 3. Renuka Daughter of Parappa Myageri, I Aged About 7 years, 0cc: Student, 4. Chandralcant Son of Parappa Myageri, Aged About 5 years, 0cc: Nil, Since Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are minors and represented thiough their Mother and Natural Guardian next friend: Srnt. Yallawwa All are residing at: Madikeshwar Muddebihal Taluk 586 212. . . . Respondents (By Sri Shivayogimath Associates, Adv) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECPION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2005 PASSED IN O.S. NO.119/2004 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SRDN) MUDDEBIHAL DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES. if CR0S4! 22/2006 i’ BETWEEN: t 1. Yeiawwa W/o Parnppa Myageri aged about 28 years occ: Coolie 2. Parasappa Sb Parappa Myageri Aged about 10 yr’s. 0cc: Student. 3. Renuka D/0 Parappa Myageri, Aged about 7 yr’s. Occ:Student, -3- 4. Charidrakant S/ o Parappa Myageri, aged about 5yrs., occ, NiL Since plaintiffs 2 - 4 are minors and repre. By their mother natural Guardian Smt, Yallauima All are residing at Madikeshwar Muddebthal Taluk, l3ijapur Dist. COc& CJFCLD Pin586212. AND: 1. The Asst. Execubve Engmeer, KVFCL Now BESCOM Muddebihal, Dist: Bijapur Pin: 586212. 2. The Executive Engineer KRTCL now BESCOM Bijapur Pin 586 101. .Respondents THIS RFA CROB IN RFA NO.461/2006 FILED U/O 41 RULE 22 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24J12005 PASSED IN O.S.NO119/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DVN.), MUDDEBIHAL, ALLOWING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES. THIS APPEAL AND CROSS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT One Parappa Myageri aged 35 years died due to electrocution having come in touch with the broken live electric wine hanging between two poles on 11.10.2002 at about 11.45 noon at Madikeswar Village impeffing the legal heirs, being the widow and minor children to institute O,SNo. 119/04 on the file of the Civil Judge, Sr.Dvn., Muddebihal, for compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs, arraigning as defendants the officers of the Kamataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. That. suit was opposed by filing written statements of the defendants interalla contending that it was the deceased who negligently came in contact with the cut live electric cable which occasioned the death. In the premise of pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed five issues, recorded the oral testimony of two witnesses for the plaintiffs as PWs I and 2, marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11 while for the defendants, the Assistant Executive Engineer was examined as DW I I —S and no document was marked in evidence. The Court below in the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record both oral and documentary held the defendants were negligent and did not safeguard nor take action over the cut live electric wire, the cause of death of Parappa. However in just a sentence, without assigning reasons, and finding concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to a global compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum, by the impugned judgnient and decree dated 24.1 L2005. Hence this first appeal while the cross objection by the respondents is for enhancement of the compensation. 2. Indisputably the live electric wire was cut and found hanging at either ends over the hut in which the deceased and his family members were residing. Due to the negligence on the part of the defendants in not taking immediate measures to cut the flow of electric energy, the deceased having came in contact with the said wire was electrocuted. The trial Court having iegard to the oral testimonies of PWs1 and 2 and the documentary evidence marshaled in the enquiry, held the defendants negligent in the performance of their duties. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the reasons findings and conclusion arrived at by the Court below on the issue of negligence. 3. In the depositions of PWs I and 2, it is asserted that the deceased was earning Rs, 1OO/ per day as a coolie and entitled to compensation of Rs.3.OO lakhs. In a suit for damages foi tort, it is needless to state that it is for the plaintiffs to establish by cogent evidence the amount to be computed as damages for negligence. The trial Court without making reference to the material on recoid, and assigning reasons straight away concluded that. the plaintiffs were entitled to global compensation of Rs2OO lakhs with interest ( 6% per annum. This conclusion in m opinion is ex-facie unsustainable, The trial Court without exerting itself over the material on record, recorded a conclusion over the quantum of damages, an error apparent on the face of the record. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree insofar as it relates to computing compensation at Rs,2OO lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum is setaside and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh on the material on record including the evidence both oral and documentary and pass orders strictly in accordance with law in any event within a period of ro months. Since the parties are presented by the learned counsel, they are directed to appear before the trial Court on 3L8.2009 without any further notice. 5 The Cross appeal does not survive for consideration and the registry is directed to refund the Court fee paid thereon, Sd! 3UDGE brn.