IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1929 AS.No. 449 of 2000(E) -------------------------- (OS.166/1996 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY) .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, THALASSERY. 3. THE ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.VENU NAYAR, SC, KSEB SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SC FOR K.S.E.B. RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ----------------------------------- 1. THRESSIA, D/O. MARIYAM, NADAMAL HOUSE, NEAR LOTUS TALKIES, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. V.GIRIJA, D/O. THANKAMMA, CHIMBANTAVIDA HOUSE, NEW MAHE PANCHAYAT, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. BYJU, S/O. BALAN @ ROLDHON (MINOR), RESIDING AT CHIMBANTAVIDA HOUSE, NEW MAHE, KANNUR DIST. (REP. BY GUARDIAN 2ND RESPONDENT MOTHER). A.S.NO.449 OF 2000 :-2-: 4. BIJU, S/O. BALAN @ ROLDHAN, (MINOR), CHIMBANTAVIDA HOUSE, NEW MAHE, KANNUR DIST. (REP. BY GUARDIAN 2ND RESPONDENT MOTHER). 5. SHILPA, D/O. BALAN @ ROLDHON, (MINOR), CHIMBANTAVIDA HOUSE, NEW MAHE, KANNUR DIST. (REP. BY GUARDIAN 2ND RESPONDENT MOTHER). BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------- A.S.No. 449 of 2000 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Raman,J: This is an appeal of the year 2000. There was delay in filing the appeal which was condoned as per order dated 22.2.2008 only. Since the respondent has already entered appearance in the delay petition and in order to avoid further delay, we have heard the matter in the admission stage. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.166 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery. The suit is one for damages. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the deceased Balan @ Roldhan, who died on 4.12.1993 on electrocution from a stay wire of an electric line drawn and maintained by the Kerala State Electricity Board. The plaintiffs contended that they are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. So however the claim was limited to Rs.3,00,000/-. The suit itself was filed as an indigent one. Though the appellants-Electricity Board even denied the A.S.NO.449 OF 2000 :-2-: cause of death, the court below on analysis of both oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, found that the deceased was electrocuted on 4.12.1993 at 10.05 p.m. due to the existence of live electric current on the stay wire connected to the electric post installed on the side of a road at Pettipalam by the K.S.E.B. It was also found that the death of the deceased was caused due to the negligence on the part of the defendants. The court below then quantified the damages to be payable based on the evidence adduced. It was found that the plaintiffs are entitled by way of compensation an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. 3. The finding that the death occurred due to electrocution and that the same is due to the negligence on the part of the K.S.E.B has become final since the Electricity Board, who are the appellants herein, admitted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as payable and A.S.NO.449 OF 2000 :-3-: disputed only the balance compensation awarded by the court below. Hence, this appeal is filed only against the quantum awarded less what is admitted. 4. The deceased was an autorickshaw driver as evidenced by Ext.A4, the driving licence issued to him. So however, on the death of the deceased, there was no valid licence produced in the case. Hence, the court below drew an inference that the contention of the plaintiffs that the deceased had a valid licence as on the date of death cannot be presumed in the absence of a valid and continuing licence. So however, he is a healthy person who is aged about 38 years and maintaining a family. Therefore, the income of the deceased was notionally fixed at Rs.1500/- per month. Consequently, the compensation was also calculated applying the multiplier of 15. For the purpose of awarding interest at 9%, the court below relied on the decision reported in Raimond Augustine v. Ludvic (1986 KLT 849) wherein it was held that in an accident A.S.NO.449 OF 2000 :-4-: case, it was just and proper to grant interest at 9% . 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded treating the income at Rs.1500/- without deducting the amount towards expenditure is wrong. The rate of interest at 9% is also excessive. The respondents however supported the judgment. 6. We have heard both sides. The court below has fixed the income at Rs.1500/- which is a notional amount. Even in an accident case, it had been held by the Apex Court that the house wife, who though may not be earning any income by way of employment, has to be presumed to be earning a notional amount. Hence, when a notional amount is fixed, further deduction therefrom towards expenditure is not warranted. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are the mother, wife and minor children of the deceased Balan, who died at the age of 38 in his prime youth. The court below is considerate in fixing the monthly income at a notional rate of Rs.1500/-. A.S.NO.449 OF 2000 :-5-: No further deduction towards expenditure, in such circumstances, is warranted for computation of compensation. The next question is regarding the interest payable. The accident occurred some time in 1993 and the nominal rate of interest awarded by the courts during those periods was 9%. The rate of interest was lowered only on the recent past. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants however submits that the rate of interest at 9% may be reduced to 6% from the date of decree. We have considered this request and heard both sides. Though a part of the amount is admitted, there is no evidence of having deposited the said sum. However, in case the appellants would deposit the entire balance principal amount payable along with interest at 9% till the date of decree from the date of suit within a period of one month from today, the interest thereafter from the date of decree till payment will stand reduced to 6% till payment failing which the appeal will stand A.S.NO.449 OF 2000 :-6-: dismissed. Balance interest at 6% shall be paid thereafter till realisation within a period of two months. The appeal suit is partly allowed. Sd/- P.R.RAMAN, Judge Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge Mbs/ -True Copy- P.A.to Judge. A.S.NO.449 OF 2000 :-7-: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- A.S.NO.449 OF 2000 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T DATED:29-2-2008 A.S.NO.449 OF 2000 :-8-: