High CourtsDivision Bench

Kerala State Electricity Board vs Antony Markose

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 6 February 2014 · Citation: (2014) 02 KL CK 0018

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.B. Radhakrishnan, J · A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 33 Rule 11, Order 41 Rule 33
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
R.F.A. No. 532 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 343 words

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—This appeal by the Kerala State Electricity Board is against a decree granted in a suit for compensation on account of electrocution.

2.

The incident stands proved by the material evidence on record. There is no contra evidence on the side of Kerala State Electricity Board. The live electric line was hanging over the building where the deceased Martin was cleaning the terrace. Obviously, there was no proper maintenance of the line. Resultantly, Martin came in contact with that line and died. We see that the impugned judgment on the question of negligence has necessarily to stand applying the doctrine of strict liability as enunciated by the Apex Court and this Court in 2002 ACJ 337 (SC) , Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and Others, and Varghese and Thressiamma Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, .

3.

Onto the question of quantum of compensation, the court below has rightly applied the relevant yardsticks in relation to the deceased, as also, the age factor of the parents and the spouse and children of the deceased. Taking all such relevant aspects into consideration and particularly, the income of the deceased, we are of the view that the compensation fixed is justifiable and does not warrant interference.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Having regard to the nature of the litigation and the economically marginalised sector to which the plaintiffs belong, we hold that they are eligible to be exempted from paying court fee in the court of first instance in view of Order XXXIII Rule 11 of CPC as amended by notification dated 13.1.1999-see for support, Joseph v. Kerala State Electricity Board [ILR 2013 (1) Ker. 26]. That modification to the impugned judgment and decree can be made in favour of the plaintiffs in exercise of power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC. In exercise of authority as afore-noted, the direction contained in the judgment and decree ordering realisation of court fee from the plaintiffs is vacated, and it is ordered that no court fee shall be recovered from them.