IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.3925 of 2012 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PREM S/O. NARIMAN, AGED 44 YEARS 2. SMT. KALAVATHI W/O. SRI. PREM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A. C/O.
M/S. SHUBHAM COMPTECH & EXPORTS PVT. LTD. No.84, 85, BJLR INDUSTRIAL AREA HOSUR ROAD, JIGANI, BENGALURU – 560106 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY M. S. BUILDING BANGALORE – 1 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD.
K. R. CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560001 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELEC., BANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. CHANDAPURA BANGALORE – 562145 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGA FOR R1 SMT. PADMA MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 - Absent) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.26684/2010 (GM-KEB) DATED 23.09.2011.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.10.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.26684 of 2010, have filed the present writ appeal.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the son of the appellants by name Daman was aged about 15 years in the year 2010. That on 01.05.2010 at around 6.30 - 7 a.m. he was proceeding on the road near Samrat Garments, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, without any premonition of the impending disaster waiting him en route. The disaster was lying on the road in the form of a live electric wire and the said Daman came in contact with the live electric wire and he was electrocuted and died. The appellants lodged a complaint at Hebbagodi Police Station, Bangalore, on 01.05.2010. The police have registered UDR No.29 of 2010 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police have conducted the postmortem of deceased Daman in Government General Hospital at Anekal.
3. The appellants approached the respondents and requested to grant compensation on account of the death of their son because of the negligence act of respondent Nos.2 and 3, as they have not taken precaution. The officials of the respondents promised to make payment of compensation, but they have failed to pay compensation demanded by the appellants. The appellants got issued a legal notice dated 07.06.2010, calling upon the respondents to pay the compensation amount. The respondents have neither replied the said legal notice nor paid the compensation amount to the appellants. The appellants, having lost the hope of getting compensation from the respondents, filed a writ petition seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, together with cost and interest at 18% per annum.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- along with 6% interest from the date of petition till payment. The respondents have complied with the order of the learned Single Judge and paid the compensation amount awarded.
5. The writ petitioners being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge, have filed the instant writ appeal for enhancement of compensation.
6. Heard learned counsels.
7. It is not in dispute that the appellants’ son was electrocuted and died. The said fact has not been denied by the respondents. The responsibility to supplying electric energy in the particular locality, was statutorily conferred on the respondent Nos.2 and 3. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy under the Law of Torts. In the instant case, the deceased Daman was a minor and a student who came in contact with live electric wire and died on the spot. That the action of the respondents in not taking precaution or providing safety measures, amounts to negligence. If any incident takes place because of the negligence of the respondents and if any injury is caused to a person, then the respondents are liable to compensate the said sufferer under the Law of Torts. The respondents have admitted negligence on their part.
8. The compensation is to be assessed as a guide placement in the society and financial status which differs from person to person. The whole issue is to be judged on the basis of facts, situation of the matter concerned, though, however, not on a mathematical nicety.
9. The deceased, Daman was a student and he died because of the admitted negligent act of the respondents. If he had survived, he would have had a bright future. The incident took place about 9 years back and the appellants are running from pillar to post for getting compensation, but they have not got proper compensation. A meager compensation has been awarded to the appellants for the death of their minor son Master Daman. By applying the multiplier method, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KISHAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER VS. LALA AND OTHERS reported in [(2014) 1 SCC 244] has held that the multiplier applicable in such case is ‘15’ to the multiplicand. In the said case the minor boy aged about 10 years died in a road accident while he was traveling in a trolley of a tractor. The trolley turned down on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the driver. FIR was registered. The parents of the deceased minor filed a claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,63,000/- under different heads. The Tribunal rejected the claim petition on the ground that the appellants have not succeeded in proving that the minor died because of falling from the tractor-trolley. The High Court, concurred with the findings and reasons recorded by the Tribunal. The parents of the minor approached Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the parents of the minor are entitled for compensation by referring to the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, at clause No.6 which refers to the notional income for compensation to those persons who had no income prior to the accident. The relevant portion of the said judgment is at paragraphs 35 to 39, which reads as under:
“35. The relevant portion of Clause 6 states as under:
‘6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident – * * * (a) Non-earning persons – Rs.15,000 p.a.’ The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, is considered by this Court in LATA Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(2001) 8 SCC 197] while examining the tortious liability of the tortfeasor has examined the criteria for awarding compensation for death of children in accidents between age group of 10 to 15 years and held in the above case that the compensation shall be awarded taking the contribution of the children to the family at Rs.12,000/- p.a. and multiplier 11 has been applied taking the age of the father and then under the conventional heads the compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,57,000/- was awarded in that case.
36. After noting the submission made on behalf of TISCO in LATA WADHWA case that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be double as in its view the determination made was grossly inadequate and the observation was further made that loss of children is irrecoupable and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which the children referred to in that case were brought up, their parents being reasonably well-placed officials of TISCO, it was directed that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakhs to which under the conventional heads a sum of Rs.50,000/- should be added and thus total amount in each case would be Rs.2 lakhs.
37. Further, in the LATA WADHWA case it was observed that insofar as the children of age group between 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all students of Class VI to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO and one of the children was employed in the Company in the said case having regard to the fact the contribution of the deceased child was taken Rs.12,000/- p.a. appears to be on the lower side and held that the contribution of such children should be Rs.24,000/- p.a.
38. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in LATA WADHWA case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years' old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non- earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard.
39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/- and further taking the young age of the parents, namely, the mother who was aged 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000 under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176], which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa case [(2001) 8 SCC 197] and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs.50,000 under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants.”
10. The notional income of the deceased who is below the age of 15 years should be taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum. The Supreme Court has not deducted any amount towards the personal expenses as he was aged 15 years. A sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded under the conventional heads.
11. The Division Bench of the Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, in Writ Appeal No.100462 of 2015, filed by the parents of Master Vinayak, aged 13 years, for enhancement of compensation amount awarded due to the death of their son who died due to electrocution, enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.3,40,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-, by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL (supra). The aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of this case.
12. The learned Single Judge has granted a meager compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-. We feel that the amount awarded by the learned Single Judge is meager.
13. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The compensation payable to the appellants is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- as against Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the learned Single Judge. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to deposit the balance compensation amount of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the amount on such deposit.
No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE RD