PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Pritpal Singh was driving a scooter on February 2, 1987. He hit an electric pole which was almost in the middle of the road and died. His widow and minor children filed a suit for the recovery of rupees 1.5 lacs as damages against the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, and the Punjab State Electricity Board. The trial Court found that Pritpal Singh was employed as a Senior Clerk in the Office of the Improvement Trust and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1154/- per mensem. He was providing Rs. 11400/- per year to the family. Assuming that a multiplier of 16 was applied, the claim made by the plaintiffs was fully justified. Consequently, the suit was decreed. It was held that both the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount with costs. The trial Court, however, did not pass any order for the payment of interest.

(2.) THE plaintiffs as well as the defendants filed separate appeals. All the three appeals were disposed of by the appellate Court vide its judgment dated January 16, 1996. While the appeals filed by the defendants were dismissed, the claim made by the plaintiffs was accepted and it was held that they were entitled to the award of compensation of Rs. 1.5 lacs with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the realisation of the decretal amount. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the Punjab State Electricity Board has filed the present second appeal.

(3.) THIS contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, no such issue was claimed by the appellant. Secondly, no such point is shown to have been raised by the appellant either before the trial Court or the appellate Court. This is in spite of the fact that in the written statement, it is stated to have been pleaded that the Improvement Trust or the Corporation had not given any information regarding the widening of the road to the Electricity Board. The matter is between the Corporation and the Board. So far as the widow and the minor children are concerned, they have not only lost the bread winner but even the person who could provide love and care to the family. Resultantly, the compensation awarded to them is wholly just and fair, it calls for no interference in the second appeal.