07.02.2022

O R D E R

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1.       This is an Appeal filed by appellants/complainants u/s 15 of C.P Act, 1986, for enhancement of award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chitradurga in CC-06/2012 on 23.07.2012.

2.       Since, this is a case of the year 2012, arguments of the parties taken as heard and examined the impugned order dated 23.07.2012.

3.       No doubt, Commission below upon examination of documents produced by the complainants shifted liability of electrocution death of deceased on O.P.No.1 to 3 in not maintaining the electric line properly and on O.P.No.4 in appointing untrained person to operate electric Motor and proceed to award a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings in favour of complainants.  The Commission below, while awarding such compensation in favour of complainants has taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and as per the provisions of M.V Act, made applicable the multiplier 16, which in our opinion is quite less.  Because, the deceased was aged about 27 and he was hale and healthy, it cannot be assumed that, he was only earning Rs.3,000/-, per month.  It is also important to mention here that, admittedly the deceased was working as waterman in the office of O.P.No.4, which was not a full time job, the deceased might have earn money from other sources too, to run his family.  Under such circumstances, it is just and proper to take into consideration, the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, per month, out of that 1/3 amount has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, if alive, so it comes to Rs.3,000/-, per month and Rs.3,000/- X 12=36,000/- per annum.  As per the provisions of M.V Act, the proper multiplier applicable is 16 so 36,000/- X 16=5,76,000/- will be the actual loss of earning.  We do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Commission below in respect of shifting of liability on O.P.No.1 to 4. 

4.       In view of the above observations, we proceed to allow Appeal No.1646/2012 by modifying the impugned order passed by Commission below only in respect of compensation amount, as stated supra.  Further, amount awarded by the Commission below towards mental agony and cost of litigation remains unchanged.  The compensation of Rs.5,76,000/-  together with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of death of deceased husband of complainant No.1, shall be payable by O.P.No.1 to 4 to the respective complainants, as per the ratio, as concluded by the Commission below.

5.       O.P.No.1 to 4 granted 60 days time to comply this order from the date of receipt of this order.

6.       Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

 Lady Member                  Judicial Member                   President

*J*