ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KPTCL MUDDAEBIHAL Vs. YALLAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Parappa Myageri aged 35 years died due to electrocution having come in touch with the broken live electric wire hanging between two poles on 11.10.2002 at about 11.45 noon at Madikeswar Village impelling the legal heirs, being the widow and minor children to institute O.S. No. 119 of 2004 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Muddebihal, for compensation of Rs. 3.00 lakhs, arraigning as defendants the officers of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. That suit was opposed by filing written statements of the defendants inter alia contending that it was the deceased who negligently came in contact with the cut live electric cable which occasioned the death. In the premise of pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed five issues, recorded the oral testimony of two witnesses for the plaintiffs as PWs 1 and 2, marked 11 documents as Exs.Pl to P11 while for the defendants, the Assistant Executive Engineer was examined as DW1 and no document was marked in evidence. The Court below in the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record both oral and documentary held the defendants were negligent and did not safeguard nor take action over the cut live electric wire, the cause of death of Parappa. However in just a sentence, without assigning reasons, and finding concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to a global compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs with interest at 6% per annum, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.11.2005. Hence this first appeal while the cross- objection by the respondents is for enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) Indisputably the live electric wire was cut and found hanging at either ends over the hut in which the deceased and his family members were residing. Due to the negligence on the part of the defendants in not taking immediate measures to cut the flow of electric energy, the deceased having came in contact with the said wire was electrocuted. The Trial Court having regard to the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and the documentary evidence marshaled in the enquiry, held the defendants negligent in the performance of their duties. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the reasons findings and conclusion arrived at by the Court below on the issue of negligence.

(3.) In the depositions of PWs 1 and 2, it is asserted that the deceased was earning Rs. 100/- per day as a coolie and entitled to compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs. In a suit for damages for tort, it is needless to state that it is for the plaintiffs to establish by cogent evidence the amount to be computed as damages for negligence. The Trial Court without making reference to the material on record, and assigning reasons straight away concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to global compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs with interest at 6% per annum. This conclusion in my opinion is ex-facie unsustainable. The Trial Court without exerting itself over the material on record, recorded a conclusion over the quantum of damages, an error apparent on the face of the record.