Kerala High Court
Kerala State Electricity Board vs Govindan Nair on 28 February, 2011
Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAYOF SEPTEMBER 2013/21ST BHADRA, 1935
RFA.No. 741 of 2011 ( )
------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 134/2009 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY
DATED 28-02-2011
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS :
-------------------------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REP.BYITS SECRETARY,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
VYDHUTHI BHAVAN,PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL DIVISION, BALUSSERI.
3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL DIVISION, BALUSSERI.
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA STATE ELECTRICIY BOARD, PERAMBRA
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION
NADUVANNUR,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:
-----------------------------------------
1. GOVINDAN NAIR
S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 83 YEARS, VAZHAYIL HOUSE
AVIDANALLUR P.O, AVIDANALLUR AMSOM DESOM
KOZHKODE DISTRICT (VIA) NADAVANNUR- PIN 673614.
2. MEENAKSHI,W/O.GOVINDAN NAIR,AGED 70
YEARS, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, P.O AVIDANALLUR
AVIDANALLUR AMSOM DESOM.
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (VIA) NADAVANNUR - PIN 673614.
AV
3. SHYNI,
W/O.LATEPRAKASAN ALIAS CHANDRAN, AGED 30 YEARS
VAZHAHYIL HOUSE, AVIDANALLUR AMSOM DESOM
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,VIA NADAVANNUR,PIN 673614.
4. PRAJUL
S/O.LATE PRAKASAN ALIAS CHANDRAN, AGED 14 YEARS
(MINOR)VAZHAYIL HOUSE, AVIDANALLUR AMSOM DESOM
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,VIA NADAVANNUR,PIN 673614.
5. ANJU,S/O.LATE PRAKASAN ALIAS CHANDRAN
AGED 12YEARS, (MINOR) VAZHAYIL HOUSE
AVIDANALLUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
VIA NADAVANNUR, PIN 673614.
(MINOR RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, SHYNI, 3RD
RESPONDENT)
R1-R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLYHEARD ON
12-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AV
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
..................................................
R.F.A.No. 741 of 2011
...................................................
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2013
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.Heard the learned standing counsel for the K.S.E.B on behalf of the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2.This appeal arises from a suit for damages on account of the electrocution of one Prakasan at the age of 38 years. The material evidence shows that he possessed a driving licence and a badge authorising him to drive transport vehicles. The evidence is that he was employed with PW2, who said that Prakasan was being paid `6000/- as monthly wages. Prakasan left behind his parents aged 83 and 70, his wife and two minor children.
R.F.A.No. 741 of 2011 2
3.Apart from assimilating the evidence available in the case, the court below applied the doctrine of strict liability; followed the relevant decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, and held that the K.S.E.B is bound to compensate.
4.In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel for the K.S.E.B. argued that the court below acted erroneously in taking that the monthly income of the deceased was `5,000/- after it had discarded the version of PW2 that Prakasan was being paid `6,000/-. K.S.E.B's learned counsel also argued that the Board having given an ex gratia payment of `50,000/-, such amount should be deducted from the total amount fixed as compensation.
5.The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the court below had erroneously deducted amounts applying a wrong classification on the basis of the number of legal representatives and dependants and R.F.A.No. 741 of 2011 3 that the total amount fixed is meagre and this happened only because the court below had erroneously reduced the amount of Praksan's salary as claimed and had not appreciated the dependency.
6.Court below rightly noted that Prakasan's parents, wife and children were entitled to other heads of claims, including loss of consortium, loss of love and affection etc. Court below has, however, put that also into the basket of the total compensation of `7 lakhs, which was arrived at taking Prakasan's monthly take home wages as `5,000/-. After holding so, the court below confined the decree to `5 lakhs as claimed by the plaintiffs, who unfortunately had to sue, also seeking leave as indigents, being unable to pay requisite court fee.
7.The plea on behalf of K.S.E.B. before us as to the eligibility for reduction of `50,000/- from the decree debt does not stand because, if that were so, Prakasan's estate represented by his parents, widow and children is R.F.A.No. 741 of 2011 4 entitled to a total compensation of `7 lakhs. If we were to deduct `50,000/- from that, the remainder would be `6.5 lakhs. There are no cross-objections by the plaintiffs claiming enhancement of the decree amount. We, therefore, do not find our way to increase the compensation granted by the court below. If we were to do that, we could have pegged it up as `6.5 lakhs, even if we were to accept K.S.E.B's plea for deduction of `50,000/-.
8.Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the totality of the pleadings, evidence and inferences available on the basis of the materials on record, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.
9.In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs, one set to the plaintiffs, all taken together. We are also of the view that having regard to the nature of the litigation and the economically marginalised sector to which each of the plaintiffs belongs, they are eligible to be R.F.A.No. 741 of 2011 5 exempted from paying court fee in the court of first instance. This we do under authority of Order XXXIII Rule 11 as amended by notification dated 13/1/1999 and thereby ordering the direction number 4 contained in the impugned judgment and decree ordering realisation of the court fee from the plaintiffs. Before parting, we think that it is high time that we sound that the State considers it appropriate to exempt suits for compensation for bodily injuries and death either under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 or those governed by the provisions of Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1977 from payment of any court fee.
sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) sd/-
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) AMV/13/9/ /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE