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 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 RFA.No. 133 of 2008() --------------------- OS.167/2002 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SADASIVAN, S/O.RAMAN, OVERSEAR, ASSIST ENGINEER'S OFFICE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KANJIRAMKULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DASAYYAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, LINE MAN, ASSIST ENGINEER'S OFFICE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KANJIRAMKULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S: ------------------------------ 1. PATHROSE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT ADIMALILTHURA, PURAMBOKDE PURAYIDAM, PULLUVILA. 2. KANAKA RAJ, AGED 45 YEARS, PERUMTHANI VEEDU,KANJIRAMKULAM DESOM, KANJIRAMKULAM PAKUTHY. ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R1 SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R1 SRI.MANU V. FOR R1 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.F.A. No. 133 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph J., The appellants are the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The suit was filed by the first respondent claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him due to falling of the electric post while the 2nd and 3rd appellants were engaged in the work of erecting the electric post. The contractor who had undertaken the work is the 2nd respondent herein. 2. Briefly put case of the 1st respondent/ plaintiff is as follows. While he was watching the post being erected by 2nd and 3rd appellants, they sought his assistance in doing work. As the post was being lifted by those who engaged in the work lost the balance, the post fell down. The first respondent was trapped under the post and sustained injuries. He claimed Rs.1,10,500/- as compensation. R.F.A. No. 133 of 2008 :2: 3. A written statement was filed by the appellants. According to them there was no negligence. According to the appellants there was no necessity for the assistance of the minor 1st respondent. As the persons engaged for doing the work, the bottom of the post slipped from the pit and was falling. On seeing this, neglecting the warning signs of the appellants, the 1st respondent entered the work site and got trapped under the post and thereby sustained injuries. Only the 1st respondent sustained injuries. The Court below decreed the suit with cost for a sum of Rs.1,10,500/- with interest from 12.5.1994 till the date of decree at the rate of 12% per annum and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization. 4. We heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 1st respondent also. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are not liable to pay the compensation. It is also contended that the interest awarded by the Court below is high. R.F.A. No. 133 of 2008 :3: 6. This is a case where the first respondent was a minor. He was studying in the VIII Std. According to him the first and second appellants were engaged in erecting an electric post by the side of Gothambu Road Adimalthura. They were doing the work in a careless and negligent manner. The first respondent was watching the post being erected. The first and second appellants sought assistance of the first respondent in doing the work and the first respondent who was never aware of the risky nature of the job rendered assistance. As the electric post was being lifted, those engaged in the work lost balance and the post fell down and he was trapped under the fallen post and all others ran away. He was rushed to the Medical College Hospital. From 12.5.94 to 31.5.94 he was kept in the intensive care unit and then shifted to the general ward. He was again shifted to I.C. Unit on 27.9.1994 and was moved to General ward on 20.10.94. There were two surgeries. He was admitted in the hospital again and he is undergoing treatment even now. He urinates and defects only with the aid of SPC tube R.F.A. No. 133 of 2008 :4: which causes much difficulty and that tube is to be replaced monthly. 7. The first respondent examined three witnesses and Exts.A1 to 14 were marked. On the side of the appellants PW1 to 3 were examined. The Court below found that even assuming that there was a contract with the additional 2nd respondent herein and that the work was done by those employed by the contractor under the supervision of appellants 2 and 3, the appellants 1 to 3 cannot absolve themselves of the liability. It is found that the generation transmission and distribution of electricity within the state is the monopoly of the first appellant. Any contractor executing any work is acting on behalf of the first appellant and if any loss or injury is caused by the act of the contractor of those employed by him, such injured person should be compensated for the injury by the first appellant. Therefore the first respondent is entitled to realise the damages from the appellants, the Court found. R.F.A. No. 133 of 2008 :5: 8. The first respondent was a student aged approximately between 13 and 15. The appellants 2 and 3 whether they were themselves executing the work or supervising the execution of the work were bound to keep first respondent away. Negligence on the part of 1st respondent could not be accepted, it is found. It was also found that the first appellant being the employer, they are vicariously responsible. The Court thereafter discussed the evidence and decreed a sum of Rs.1,10,500/- with interest. 9. The appellants are not able to convince us that the reasoning given by the Trial Court that they are liable to pay the compensation is erroneous. The 2nd respondent contractor was working on behalf of the appellants. We must also notice that the first respondent/plaintiff was a small boy aged between 13-15 years. We cannot find fault in the finding of the Court below in putting the blame on the appellants and finding that there is negligence. 10. Further question to be considered is relating to interest. R.F.A. No. 133 of 2008 :6: We notice that the interest awarded is 12% per annum from 12.5.94 till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from 12.5.94 till the date of realization. As far as interest from the date of decree till realization is considered, we see no reason to interfere with the same, going by the fact that it is not a commercial transaction. We would think the interest awarded at the rate of 12% from 12.5.94 till the date of decree requires interference. It is reasonable to substitute it as 8%. 11. Accordingly we allow the appeal in part and direct that the first respondent is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,10,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% from 12.5.1994 till the date of decree instead of 12%. In other respects we confirm the decree of the Trial Court. K.M.JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) R.F.A. No. 133 of 2008 :7: dl/