The Executive Engineer (Ele) vs Shanta

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioners representing the Hubli Electricity Supply Company have questioned the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Belgaum, in Petition No. 37/2011 whereby the Lok Adalat had awarded a sum of Rs. 8,34,000/- in favour of the respondents by its award dated 26/07/2012.

The background to the case is as follows:

It transpires that Shivananda, son of the respondents herein, had been appointed as a lineman by the petitioners and was designated as a Majdoor Gangman in the year 2007 and he was serving as a probationary lineman. On 05/10/2009, it transpires, on the orders of his superiors, Shivananda had proceeded to attend to a repair in the transformer and after deducting the fault in the transformer it transpires that Shivananda climbed an electric pole and while doing so, he had come into contact with a high tension power line and was electrocuted. It is in that background that the respondents had approached the Lok Adalat seeking compensation on account of the untimely death of their son on whose income they were dependent for their livelihood. The Lok Adalat, in a contested claim, had proceeded to address the entitlement of the respondents to compensation in adopting the salary of deceased over the years at a sum of Rs. 7,000/- when he was earning about Rs. 4,015/- per month with a take home salary of only Rs. 3,015/-. The Lok Adalat had proceeded to calculate other heads of compensation and had arrived at an exorbitant sum of Rs. 8,34,000/-. It is the basis on which the Lok Adalat had proceeded to award the compensation that is sought to be questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

The respondents have entered appearance through counsel and have filed statement of objections seeking to justify the same.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the Lok Adalat had proceeded to address the claim for compensation as if it was a motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the salary adopted being on the higher side, has resulted in a large sum being awarded as compensation which ought to be appropriately scaled down and he would suggest that the income to be taken has to be scaled down in which event the respondents would be entitled to only a sum of Rs. 3,03,176/-.

Given the above circumstances, no doubt a higher assessment of compensation has been made in favour of the respondents, it ought to be appropriately scaled down and in order to ensure that there is a balancing of equities, without placing much significance on the exact amount of salary which the deceased was earning at the time of his death. If a reasonable amount is adopted as the future loss of benefit to the respondents, it could be said that Shivananda was capable of earning a higher income in the course of his career and given the rate of inflation, the prospects of such increase in his salary could not be ruled out. Therefore, if the compensation awarded is reduced globally, interest of justice would be met. Therefore, instead of Rs. 8,34,000/-, the same shall stand modified to Rs. 6,25,000/- as just compensation which shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment. Since the petitioners have already deposited the entire amount of Rs. 8,34,000/-, a sum of Rs. 6,25,000/- shall be calculated with interest at 6% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment and the balance, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners.

The amount in deposit before the trial Court in terms as above shall be withdrawn by the respondents.