PUSHPA Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed against the judgement and decree dated 29.4.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, in A.S.No,47 of 2007, partly allowing the judgement and decree dated 5.10.2005 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur, in O.S.No,69 of 2004.THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 29.4.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, in A.S.No,47 of 2007, partly allowing the judgement and decree dated 5.10.2005 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur, in O.S.No,69 of 2004. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(2.) A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal, would run thus:(a) The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No,69 of 2004 claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 5 one Subramani, in the electrocution accident, which took place on 14.6.2003, as against which, the first defendant filed the written statement and resisted the suit.(b) During enquiry, the trial Court framed the relevant issues. The first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with one Elango as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A.3 were marked. One C.Elumalai was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.(c) Ultimately the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as against which, the first defendant filed the A.S.No,47 of 2007. The first appellate Court modified the trial Court's judgement and reduced the compensation to Rs.3,25,000/- from Rs.4,00,000/-. (d) Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No,47 of 2007, this second appeal has been focussed by the plaintiffs on various grounds.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs would advance his argument to the effect that even though the trial Court quantified the compensation in a sum of Rs.4,25,000/-, nonetheless in view of the fact that the prayer was only for Rs.4,00,000/-, it slashed it down to Rs.4,00,000/- and awarded the just compensation On the other, without any rhyme or reason, the first appellate Court further slashed it down to Rs.3,25,000/- by wrongly choosing the lesser multiplier 13 and also choosing the multiplicand as Rs.20,000/- per annum. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs prayed for interference of this Court.