MANAGING DIRECTOR OF GESCOM Vs. SANNA BHIMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are before this Court in this second appeal under Sec. 100 of Civil Procedure Code assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below.

(2.) The parties are referred to in the same rank as assigned to them before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

(3.) The plaintiff was before the trial Court in O.S.No.28/2010 contending that his son Nimbanna who was aged about 25 years was doing coolie as well as agricultural work and when he was going to tie the bullock to the tree beside the electric pole, came in contact with the live wire and was electrocuted. In that view, contending that he was earning about Rs.250.00 per day, had sought for appropriate compensation. The defendants on appearing in the suit had filed their objection statement and disputed the claim as put forth by the plaintiff. It was contended that there is no material to establish that the son of the plaintiff had died due to electrocution or at least due to the negligence of the defendants. It was further contended that since the claim is under the Fatal Accidents Act, it is barred by limitation and the same is to be rejected.