KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. KATHREENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS appeal by the Kerala State Electricity Board is against a decree for compensation granted in a case of electrocution.

(3.) ONTO the question of compensation, we have heard the learned counsel for both parties. The court below concluded that an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs could be granted as the deceased was a mason by profession and was getting Rs. 4,000/ - per month. He was managing the affairs of the family consisting of his mother and his younger brother. Deceased Benny was 28 years of age at the time of his electrocution. The pleaded case is that he was earning Rs. 4,000/ - per month. There is no documentary evidence in support of that, though there is no contra evidence as well. He remained unmarried. The second plaintiff is his brother. The first plaintiff is his mother. Going by the impugned judgment, first plaintiff died on 04.01.2000. This means that even at the time of the judgment, the court below had known the length of dependency of the mother during the currency of the lifetime of the mother on Benny. That comes to around two years. If that be so, even if we accept that Benny had monthly earning of Rs. 4,000/ -, his consolidated income for the two years would be Rs. 96,000/ -. Let us take it that he contributed one half of that to his mother. That means that he would have contributed an amount of Rs. 48,000/ - to his mother until she died. With that, we will put a component towards loss of love and affection, pain and suffering of the mother and the loss of the company of the adult son for love and care. For that, we would fix an amount of Rs. 30,000/ -. This takes a total compensation due to the first plaintiff mother at Rs. 78,000/ -. The second plaintiff, being the brother of Benny, is not entitled to the compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 as is evident from the second paragraph of Section 1A of that Act. With the passage of time, as on the date of decreeing the suit, he was the heir of the mother and thus, the second plaintiff was the legal representative of the first plaintiff. Therefore, the court below granted the decree in favour of the second plaintiff only as a representative of the estate of the first plaintiff mother.