IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 RFA.No. 250 of 2009(A) ------------------------------------------ OS.221/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------ MANI, W/O. GOPALAN, VARKYAMATTU VEETTIL, CHERIYAPALLAMTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.L.DEVADAS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- R.F.A. NO. 250 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st October, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellants are the Kerala State Electricity Board and the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Board respectively. They call in question the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal Sub Judge, North Paravur decreeing the Suit for compensation filed by the respondent/plaintiff in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/= with interest at 12 per cent from the date of Suit till the date of realisation. The case of the respondent/plaintiff revolved around the death due to electrocution suffered by her son whom she describes as her only son. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The court below framed four Issues. It found that there was negligence on the part of the appellants, that the Suit was not RFA.NO.250/09 2 barred by limitation and further found that the amount claimed as compensation is not excessive. It found that the deceased had no permanent income. Taking note of the evidence of Pws.1 & 2 to the effect that the deceased was healthy and was getting an income of more than Rs.4,000/= per month and he was getting Rs.150/= to Rs.175/= per day and no contra evidence was adduced and also that the defendants have abstained from entering into the witness box and an adverse inference can be drawn and further noting that the respondent was fiftyfour years of age at the time of accident and the dependent on the deceased, the Suit was decreed as above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would canvass before us the correctness of the Judgment and Decree in so far as it related to the fixation of the quantum. He would contend that there was no evidence, and that the amount awarded is excessive and the entire plaint claim has been decreed and he would also commend for our acceptance the complaint that there is no reasoning to support the finding and the decision of the RFA.NO.250/09 3 court below. He points out that there is no calculation done by the court below and that the amount is very excessive. Learned counsel for the respondent would support the Award. 4. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the court below has erred in decreeing the Suit in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/= with interest at 12 per cent. As we have already noted that there is no discussion as such. Even if we take the income at Rs.4,000/= per month, accepting the evidence in this regard in the form of the oral testimony adduced by the respondent/plaintiff, we would think that the amount arrived at by the court below is excessive. The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was aged twenty years according to the respondent. The plaintiff was aged fiftyfour years. Even if we reduce only 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased from the income of Rs.4,000/=, the monthly dependency would be in the region of Rs.2,668/=. Of course, the deceased also would have got married. In the facts of this case, we take the income at Rs.2,668/= per month. RFA.NO.250/09 4 Having regard to the age of the plaintiff, the dependency can be worked out taking eleven as the multiplier. On that basis, the dependency would be Rs.3,52,176/=. We also feel that in view of the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the deceased was the only son of the plaintiff on whom she was depending, we ought to award a sum of Rs.25,000/= towards loss of love and affection. We also feel that an amount of Rs.5,000/= can be awarded as funeral expenses. Thus, the plaintiff would be entitled to a compensation o f Rs.3,82,176/=. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that an amount of Rs.2,000/= has already been paid. Deducting the said amount, the respondent will be entitled to a Decree in a sum of Rs.3,80,176/= instead of Rs.6,00,000/=. In regard to the question of interest, we feel that the award of interest at twelve per cent appears to be on the higher side. We feel that we can award interest at nine per cent from the date of Suit till the date of the Decree and also with costs and at six per cent interest from the date of the Decree till the date of realisation. Thus, we RFA.NO.250/09 5 allow the Appeal in part and modify the Decree as follows: There will be a Decree in favour of the respondent in a sum of Rs.3,80,176/= (Rupees Three Lakhs, Eighty Thousand, One Hundred & Seventysix) with interest at nine per cent from the date of the Suit till the date of the Decree and with interest at six per cent per annum from the date of the Decree till the date of realisation with costs. In view of the special facts of this case, we order that the parties will bear their respective costs in this Appeal. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge