THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.469 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellants filed O.S.No.22 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, claiming a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation on account of the death of late Chinna Kullai Reddy, husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3. It was pleaded that the deceased was cultivating the land by taking it on lease and on 09.02.2001 at midnight, when he was returning from the field, he came across a live wire of an electrical line and the same led to electrocution resulting in his death. Crime No.12 of 2001 was registered against the respondents. They pleaded negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining the transformer. The respondents filed a written statement opposing the suit. They pleaded that it is an act of God and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. The trial Court decreed the suit on 01.08.2005 by awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S.No.30 of 2005 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. The appeal was partly allowed through judgment, dated 20.11.2007 and the compensation was reduced to 50,000/-. The same is challenged in this second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. The trial Court framed the following three issues for its consideration, on the basis of the pleadings before it: (i) whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation as prayed for? (ii) Whether there was no sort of negligence or misconduct on the part of the defendant’s company and its employee, as contended by the defendants was binding on the defendants? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs entitled compensation sought for? On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court found that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining the transformer and awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The lower appellate Court framed only one point for its consideration viz., whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation as prayed for. On the question of negligence, it concurred with the finding recorded by the trial Court and in fact, added additional reasons. However, it reduced the compensation to Rs.50,000/- just with the following reason: “The plaintiffs claim that the deceased was person with land extent of more than five acres. However the same was not established by the plaintiffs. In the absence of the same, the quantum of compensation needs to be reduced. The compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- granted by the trial Court appears excessive under the circumstances of the case. The same is reduced to Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiffs are entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization. The point is held accordingly.” There is absolutely no basis for the lower appellate Court in refusing the compensation. It is not as if any factors such as age and income of the deceased were re- appreciated and a finding was recorded. Further, no justification was indicated as to how the amount of Rs.50,000/- is adequate. Viewed from any angle, the judgment of the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment of the lower appellate Court insofar as it reduced the compensation is set aside. Consequently, the decree passed by the trial Court is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 09.11.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.469 of 2009 Date: 09.11.2009 JSU