IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 RFA.No. 112 of 2009() --------------------- DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN O.S.26/03 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHERTHALA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, AREEPARAMBU, ARTHINKAL, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ----------------------------- 1. JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS, KRUISHINKAL HOUSE, WARD NO. XIII, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 2. VICTORIA, AGED 54 YEARS, KRUISHINKAL HOUSE, WARD NO. XIII, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 3. REETHAMMA, AGED 32 YEARS, KRUISHINKAL HOUSE, WARD NO. XIII, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 4. SEBASTIAN, AGED 30 YEARS, KRUISHINKAL HOUSE, WARD NO. XIII, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA RFA 112/09 5. MARY GRACY, AGED 28 YEARS, KURUSHINKAL HOUSE, WARD NO. XIII, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.713 OF 2009 IN R.F.A.NO.112 OF 2009 DISMISSED 12.3.2009 SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.F.A. No.112 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 12th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Satheesachandran, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th August, 2004 in O.S.No.26 of 2003 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Cherthala. The suit was one for compensation filed by the parents and also brethren of one Johnson who met an accidental death by electrocution on 25.4.2001. The victim while returning home at night accidentally stepped upon a broken live electric wire lying on the road side, got electrocuted and breathed his last. Attributing negligence and carelessness to the respondents, the K.S.E.B. and its employees, the suit was laid claiming compensation from the respondents. The respondents resisted the suit, contending there was no negligence in maintaining the electric line, but, the incident occurred on account of natural calamity arising from heavy rain and falling of a cudgel leaf over the line. Disputing the compensation claimed, it was stated that an amount of Rs.50,000/- had been paid as ex-gratia by the Board to the parents of the victim on of his death by electrocution. The learned Subordinate Judge, appreciating the materials tendered by both sides, concluded that the RFA No.112/09 - 2 - death of the victim arose by culpable negligence on the part of the respondents and as such they are liable to compensate his dependants. However, it was found that only the parents, plaintiffs 1 and 2 alone have the right to claim compensation, but not the brethren of the victim who had also been arrayed as co-plaintiffs in the suit. A total sum of Rs.1.95,000/- was adjudged as compensation. Towards the claim arising under various heads, acknowledging the sum of Rs.50,000/- already paid by the respondents as ex-gratia, a decree was passed for Rs.1,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation from respondents 1 and 2 in the suit. The appellants impeach the decree in the appeal to the extent the compensation fixed is considered excessive and unreasonable. 2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. The case of the appellants is that on actual assessment of compensation, in accordance with the norms and settled principles applicable, the parents of the victim are entitled to only Rs.1,14,500/- and the sum granted above that amount under the decree is excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable. The father and mother of the victim were aged 56 years and 54 years respectively at the time of his death and as such if the quantum of compensation is assessed on RFA No.112/09 - 3 - the basis of the notional income and structured formula under the Motor Vehicles Act, the just and reasonable compensation would come to only Rs.1,14,500/-, according to the appellants. In that view of the matter, the appellants seek for limiting the compensation payable on the death of the victim to only Rs.1,14,500/-, modifying the decree by allowing this appeal. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the quantification of compensation made by the court below is strictly in accordance with the principles applicable and there is no merit in the challenges raised that the compensation awarded is excessive and unreasonable. Having regard to the age of the victim and that of the parents on the basis of income potentiality of the victim, it is submitted, the learned Sub Judge found that annual dependency of the parents would come to Rs.12,000/-, and adopting a multiplier of 15, compensation towards the loss of dependency of the parents on the death of the victim was assessed at Rs.1,80,000/-. Considering that the compensation is awarded in lumpsum, the learned Sub Judge restricted the compensation to Rs.1,50,000/-. The rest of the compensation was awarded under various other heads like funeral expenses, loss of love and affection etc. Whatever sum awarded under the decree is strictly based on a proper assessment of all RFA No.112/09 - 4 - relevant factors involved in the adjudication of a claim of compensation and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the quantum of compensation fixed by the court below, submits the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The victim, Johnson, met his death by electrocution coming into contact with a live electrical line lying on the ground after it was broken from the electric line maintained by the respondents, is conceded. Though the respondents have disputed their negligence contending that the electric line got snapped owing to natural calamity and not on account of their default, they could not give any worth mentioning explanation how the broken electric line continued to be live after falling to the ground, which prima facie indicated lack of adequate care and protective mechanism of fuse systems in the electric posts. Had the respondents installed fuse systems in the electric posts from which the live electric line snapped, the electric supply would have been cut off if the snapping of the line was on account of natural calamity of heavy rain and falling of a cudgel leaf over the line, as contended by the respondents. A discussion on the negligence of the respondents resulting in the death of the victim is not called for in the given facts of the case, but, it has to be observed, whatever be the explanation offered by the respondents to RFA No.112/09 - 5 - deny the negligence imputed against them, no evidence was let in nor any circumstance in support thereof was presented. The finding on that point entered by the learned Sub Judge is also not challenged, and the appeal is confined to only the quantum of compensation decreed to the dependents of the victim. 5. The evidence of P.W.1, the father of the victim, was to the effect that the victim was the sole earning member of his family. The victim was employed as a fisherman and he had earnings of Rs.250/- per day, was his version. The learned Sub Judge observing that the victim might not have continous employment on all days fixed his notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month, and dependency of his parents, who alone were found entitled to compensation on his death, was assessed at Rs.1000/- per month. Taking note of the age of the parents, father at 56 and mother at 54, at the time of the death of the victim, a multiplier of 15 was adopted. Annual dependency at Rs.12,000/-, adopting the multiplier of 15, gave rise to Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation towards loss of dependency suffered by the parents. Since lumpsum amount was awarded, compensation on that count was limited to Rs.1,50,000/-. When multiplier method is adopted to determine the quantum of compensation payable on loss of dependency, there is no scope for reduction of any sum RFA No.112/09 - 6 - towards loss of expectation of life on the ground that compensation is paid in lumpsum. We do note that the learned Sub Judge erred in deducting a percentage towards loss of expectancy in life from the lumpsum compensation arrived following the multiplier method. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is higher, and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would give the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In following this principle, to assess the just compensation, the idea is that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed for the period for which the dependency is expected to lost. It is well settled and well accepted that the multiplier method is logically sound and the better method for assessment of compensation in fatal accident cases. The other method followed in determining the compensation is on the basis of the aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deduct a percentage there from towards uncertainties of future life and award the resullting sum as compensation. In the present case, RFA No.112/09 - 7 - the learned Sub Judge has mixed up the two methods, i.e., after following the multiplier method, deduction is made towards loss of expectancy of life, holding that such reduction is required when compensation is paid in lumpsum. The lumpsum payment of compensation following the multiplier method should not invite any deduction as the appropriate multiplier is chosen so that ultimately the compensation should be consumed once the dependency period is over. There is no question of deducting any sum of compensation arrived through the multiplier method towards loss of expectancy in life. We also notice that the loss of dependency per annum at Rs.12,000/-, i.e., at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month assessing the earning potentiality of the victim at Rs.54,000/- per annum, i.e., at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month, was not proper and correct. Even in respect of a non-earning member under 2nd schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the notional income has to be fixed at Rs.15,000/- per annum for arriving a just compensation. Deduction of two-third of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, even assuming that the victim after a period of time would have married and had to rear a family separately and the parents would not have continuous dependency through out on the victim, appears to be not just and reasonable. We have adverted to the above though there is no RFA No.112/09 - 8 - challenge on those aspects, only to point out that whatever compensation assessed towards loss of dependency on the death of the victim is only on the lesser side and it does not call for any interference. 6. The victim was a young man who had vocation as a fisherman. Though the respondents had disputed his earning capacity, and employment, the evidence let in by the plaintiffs on that aspect remain uncontroverted. Having regard to the age of the victim and that of his parents, the dependents, it cannot be stated that the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency at Rs.1,50,000/- by the court below is excessive or unreasonable. 7. Towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.5000/- was awarded, which on any account is just and proper. Towards loss of love and affection, the aged parents of the victim were awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/-. That, in the given facts of the case where the victim was shown to be the only earning member of his family, is reasonable and not at all excessive. The total amount of compensation as adjudged by the court below comes to Rs.1,80,000/-, but by inadvertence and mistaken calculation, a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- was arrived at and giving credit to Rs.50,000/- already paid as ex-gratia, the appellants were directed to pay the balance amount of RFA No.112/09 - 9 - Rs.1,45,000/- with 6% interest per annum under the decree. The compensation adjudged and found payable, no doubt, is only Rs.1,80,000/-, but, on wrong calculation, it has been fixed at Rs.1,95,000/-. We do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation fixed at the various heads for a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and the challenge raised that it is excessive and unreasonable deserve to be noted only for its rejection. 8. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. 9. However, we make it clear that the appellants are free to move under Section 152 of the C.P.C. before the court below for correction of the decree with respect to the quantum of compensation payable, which is shown on the basis of a mistake on calculation. The dismissal of the appeal will not stand in the way of the appellants to move for correction in the judgment and decree as to the total sum of compensation payable in accordance with the quantum fixed by the court below. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE