- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2412 OF 2024 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. S.R. PRASANNA S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 2. S.R. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O A. SHRIRAMANAHALLI VILLAGE HONAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHESCOM MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEVARAJU .H.V, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.83/2017 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal filed by the appellants - plaintiffs in O.S.No.83/2019 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2019 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mandya, whereby the said suit filed by the appellants - plaintiffs against the respondent - defendant for claiming compensation a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards demise of Sri.Ramakrishnaiah on account of electrocution together with interest was dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants - plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 3. On perusal of the materials on record, it would indicate that the appellants -plaintiffs due to electrocution on account of negligence on the part of the respondent, under such circumstances, the appellants - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit claiming compensation a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- together with interest and other reliefs. 4. The respondent - defendant entered appearance and contested the suit and put forth various contentions including contention that the suit was barred by limitation. Pursuant to the pleadings from the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues; "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that on 18.07.2012 at about 10.45 a.m., when Sri.Ramakrishna attempted to switch off his IP set situated about 300 ft., from a transformer that had caught fire was electrocuted and had died on account of burn injuries? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the accident on account of the negligence on the part of the defendant? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the compensation as claimed in the plaint? 4. What order or decree?" 5. On perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, it would indicate that though various contentions were urged by both sides on merits, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation on the ground that the prescribed period of two years as contemplated under Article 82 of the Limitation Act had expired and the suit having filed on 10.06.2015 more than two years after the date of demise of Sri.Ramakrishnaiah, which took place on 18.07.2012. In this context, it is pertinent to note that Executive Engineer (Ele) and another vs. Smt.D.C.Bhagya and another in RFA No.493/2019, the Division Bench of this Court has come to the concussion that the prescribed period of limitation to seek compensation for demise of Sri.Ramakrishnaiah would be covered by the Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which is provision and not Article 8 of the Limitation Act, which is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 applicable only in the case of proceeding under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. In the said judgment, it is held as under; "15. The fact that Narasimhegowda died on account of electrocution and due to the negligence on the part of the appellants herein has been established by the respondents/plaintiffs. However, the controversy is with regard to the maintainability of the suit. 16. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit was barred by time inasmuch as Article 82 of the Act applied and in the instant case, the death had occurred on 16/08/2011. That within a period of two years from that date, the suit had to be filed, but in the instant case, it was filed on 27/07/2017, which was beyond the period of two years and hence, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit. 17. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs is that it is Article 113 of the Act, which applies and not Article 82 of the Act. That the suit was filed under common law, seeking compensation on account of negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants. There is specific - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 limitation prescribed in Part VII which deals with suits relating to certain tort only. That Article 113 is in Part X, wherein the prescribed period of limitation is three years when no specific limitation period is fixed and that in the instant case, the suit that was filed on 27/07/2017, which was within the said period of three years. 18. The rival contentions of the respective parties have been considered by us. 19. In order to appreciate the same, it would be useful to extract Articles 82 and 113 of the Schedule to the Act as under: PART VII— SUITS RELATING TO TORT Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period Begins to run 82.By executors, administrators or representatives under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855). Two years The date of the death of the person killed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 PART X – SUITS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED PERIOD Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period Begins to run 113.Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule. Three years When the right to sue accrues. On a reading of the same, it is clear that when a suit is filed under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 by executors, administrators or representatives, then the limitation period is two years from the date of death of a person. However, if a suit is filed de hors the said Act, there is no prescribed period of limitation under Part VII, which deals with suits relating to tort. We have closely perused Articles 72 to 91, and in none of the articles is there a reference to a suit filed seeking compensation on account of death de hors the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, in other words, a suit being filed under common law to seek compensation on account of death of a person due to negligence on the part of the respondents and not by way of a statutory action. In the circumstances, Article 113 in Part X would apply as this is an omnibus article which is applicable to suits where there is no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 specifically prescribed period of limitation. Hence, in the instant case, when the suit was not filed under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and was filed for enforcing a common law right as per Section 9 of the CPC, there being no specific period of limitation fixed in Part VII of the Schedule to the Act, Article 113 would apply. The trial Court was justified in entertaining the suit as in the instant case, Narasimhegowda died on 16/08/2011, but the suit was filed on 08/08/2014, which was well within three years the period of limitation prescribed under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Act and also bearing in mind Sections 13 and 19 of the Act. Hence, point No.1 is answered in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and against the appellants. 20. However, learned counsel for the defendants/appellants relied upon the judgment of Gauhati High Court in the case of Smt. Maya Rani Ghosh etc. vs. State of Tripura and others [AIR 2007 Gauhati 76]. We have perused the said judgment and we find that in the said judgment, the question was whether the suit filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, had to be filed before the jurisdictional trial Court or before the District Court by filing an application. It was held that, in the absence of special Court or Tribunal set up under the said Act, the suit had to be filed before the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 District Court and in terms of Article 82 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, but in the instant case, the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was not under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and hence, the said judgment is of no assistance to the appellants. 21. Similarly, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Damini and another vs. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and another [Civil Appeal No.12851/2017], does not assist the appellants as in the said case also suit was filed under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and it was held that in such a case, Article 82 to the Schedule of Limitation Act would apply and that the residuary article does not apply. As already noted in the instant case, the suit was not filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and hence, Article 82 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act does not apply. 22. This takes us to the next point for consideration, which is, with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court. In this regard, appellants’ counsel contended that the award of Rs.14,40,000/- with interest at 15% per annum to the plaintiffs by setting off Rs.1.00 lakh paid ex-gratia is exorbitant. Of course, learned - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has supported the said award. However, we have analyzed the award of said compensation in terms of what is granted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with regard to death in respect of a road traffic accident, which would also occur on account of negligence. By way of an analogous application, the compensation has been re-computed by us. 23. It is noted that the deceased Narasimhegowdawas aged forty years and he was an agriculturist and had his own lands. The accident had occurred on 16/08/2011 and he had died on the same day. Since the death is of the year 2011, in order to assess the notional income of the deceased, in the absence of there being any categorical evidence in that regard, we have assessed the notional income at Rs.6,500/- per month. Since the deceased was forty years of age, 15 multiplier has been applied. Having regard to the latest dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 (Pranay Sethi), 40% of the notional income is added towards future prospects of the deceased, then the total would be Rs.6,500 + Rs.2,600 = Rs.9,100/- and 1/3rd of the said income is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased having regard to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [AIR 2009 SC 3104] (Sarla Verma). As a result, the amount would be Rs.6,066/-. The same has to be annualized and appropriate multiplier of ‘15’ is applied, again having regard to the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, the compensation on the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.9,100/- - 1/3rd = Rs.6,066 x 12 x 15 = Rs.10,91,880/-. To that, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is added towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’ and a sum of Rs.30,000/- is towards ‘loss of parental consortium’ to the widow and minor daughter of Narasimhegowda respectively, having regard to the dictum in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others [2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)] (Magma General Insurance Company). In addition, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses having regard to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi. Thus, the total compensation would be Rs.11,91,880/-. A sum of Rs.1.00 lakh which is awarded ex-gratia is deducted and the compensation is Rs.10,91,880/- instead of Rs.14,40,000/- as awarded by the trial Court. Further, the trial Court has awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the said compensation, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 which we find is exorbitant and the same is scaled down to 9% per annum. Thus, the total compensation awarded is Rs.10,91,880/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Thus, point No.2 is answered partly in favour of the appellants. 24. The re-computed compensation shall be apportioned equally between the respondents/claimants. The entire compensation awarded to the minor daughter shall be deposited in any post office or nationalized bank until she attains the age of majority. Out of the compensation apportioned to the widow of the deceased, 60% shall be deposited in any post office or nationalized bank for an initial period of ten years. She shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The remaining compensation amount shall be released to her after due identification. 25. In the result, appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. 26. Parties to bear their respective costs. 27. The appellants shall deposit the compensation amount with upto date interest within - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2019 stands disposed." 6. In the instant case, it is undisputed fact that the aforesaid Ramakrishnaiah expired on 18.07.2012 and the suit having filed within the prescribed period of three years on 10.06.2015 as contemplated under Article 113 of the Limitation Act was clearly within the limitation and the findings recorded by the Trial Court to non-suit the plaintiffs on the ground of limitation deserves to be set- aside and the matter be remitted back to the Trial Court for re-consideration on merits in accordance with law without reference to the limitation, since the suit is not barred by limitation and the finding of the trial court deserve to be set aside. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2019 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mandya in O.S.No.83/2019 is set-aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law on merits without reference to the issue on limitation, which stands concluded in favour of the appellants by this Order. (iv) The appellants and respondent shall appear before the Trial Court on 17.11.2025 without await any further notice. (v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from 17.11.2025 (vi) All rival contentions are kept open. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42055 RFA No. 2412 of 2024 (vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11