IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 RFA.No. 460 of 2008() --------------------- OS.329/2003 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS -------------------------------------- 1. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, WADAKKANCHERRY. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERLA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KARUMATHRA. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF ---------------------- 1. PARUKUTTY, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.LATE KUTTAPPA, NAMBRATH (H),GIRUPPAKKA VILLAGE -DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RADHA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.NAMBRATH ITTIKKAN, VIRUPPAKKA VILLAGE-DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SREEJA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.NAMBRATH ITTIKKAN, VIRUPPAKKA VILLAGE-DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. REJESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.NAMBRATH ITTIKKAN, VIRUPPAKKA VILLAGE-DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. SANDHYA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.NAMBRATH ITTIKKAN, VIRUPPAKKA VILLAGE-DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. P.A.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, PUTHANPEDIKAYIL HOUSE KUMARANELLUR P.O, WADAKKANCHERY (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. PADMANABHAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUTTAPPAN, NAMBRATH HOUSE, VIRUPPAKKA VILLAGE-DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA NO.2813/2008 DISMISSED 8/8/2008 SD/- P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.F.A. No.460 of 2008-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT Raman, J. This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Thrissur in O.S. No.329/2003. Respondents 1 to 5 and one Kuttappa who are the legal heirs of deceased Ittikkan, instituted the said suit claiming compensation for the death of Ittikkan due to electrocution alleging negligence on the part of the Kerala State Electricity Board and others. The first plaintiff Kuttappa died during the pendency of the proceedings and the 7th respondent herein was also impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the deceased was 47 years. He was a moderately healthy person who was the sole bread winner of his family consisting of his father, mother and children and earning a daily income of Rs.350/- as a coconut plucker. On 30.10.1999 at about 12.30 p.m. while the deceased was engaged in plucking of arecanuts from the property of one Vadassery Radhakrishnan in Viruppakka village, he happened to touch a live electric wire snapped and lying on the ground. He cried allowed. On RFA 460/2008 -2- hearing the screaming voice the other workers engaged in the works reached there and took him to the hospital. Ittikkan succumbed to the injuries. It is alleged that the death is due to the laches and negligence on the part of the employees of the Board. The electric line drawn through the property of Radhakrishnan was in a dilapidated condition and this fact was known to the employees of the Board, but no steps were taken to cure the defect. An amount of Rs.3 lakhs was claimed in all from respondents 1 to 3. The suit was filed as an indigent O.P. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 in their joint written statement denied the averments made in the plaint. They also denied that he was paying an amount of Rs.350/- per day as a a coconut or arecanut plucker. They also denied the allegation of negligence and that the compensation claimed was also contended to be excessive. According to them, the electric line got broken from the cross arm and no trees or branches of the trees were touching the electric line passing through the property. It was only when the deceased attempted to remove the bunch of arecanuts from the low tension single phase line with the sickle and in that attempt the neutral line got broken and the line fell on the shoulder of the deceased and the mishap happened. The electric line was not snapped and was not lying the compound of Radhakrishnan and the incident happened due to the negligent act of the deceased only. RFA 460/2008 -3- 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A4. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined besides marking of Ext.B1. The court below considered the issue as to whether the incident occurred due to the negligence of defendants 1 to 3. After analysing the evidence, court found that the incident happened as a result of the negligent act of the defendants in not maintaining the line properly. It was then considered as to what is the compensation awardable in this case and after considering the age of the deceased and taking the notional income at Rs.2,000/- per month, the compensation was worked out under different heads totaling to Rs.2,43,000/- and awarded the same with interest. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the compensation awarded is excessive in that, though the notional income of Rs.2,000/- was fixed, that was without any evidence in the case. Further, it was pointed out that at least 1/3rd should have been deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased from the amount of Rs.2,000/- and balance amount should have been taken and applying the multiplier of 13, the compensation ought to have been fixed. We find primafacie some force in this argument. But we find that even the amount of Rs.2,000/- was fixed rejecting the contention of the plaintiffs that the average income earning by the deceased was Rs.350/-. Therefore, the amount of Rs.2,000/- was fixed RFA 460/2008 -4- only on a notional basis. It has to be seen that even an amount of Rs.70/- per day as wages would have given him an earning of more than Rs.2,000/-. The accident occurred sometimes in 1999. Further, the interest awarded is only 7.5% and the multiplier adopted is only 13. On an overall consideration, we find that the compensation calculated and awarded is in no way excessive. The court below has applied the correct principles in arriving at the compensation awardable. In the matter of awarding compensation for negligence, in the absence of any statutory prescription of the amount, some element of arbitrariness is bound to be there. But unless it is shown that the amount of compensation is so disproportionate or in any way excessive, we do not think there is justification for interference with the judgment and decree passed by the court below. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/