The legal representative, if dependent on the incomes of the deceased, is entitled to compensation. In the absence of cross-objection, the respondent cannot seek more compensation than already awarded by the lower courts.

1. In both the appeals, the appellant-defendants are questioning the legality of the common judgment bearing dated 16-5-2014 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Appeal No. 12 of 2013 and Money Appeal No. 13 of 2013 upholding the trial court’s judgments in Money Suits No. 21 and 22 of 2011 awarding compensations of varying amounts. In these tragic cases, both the brothers died of electrocution, which is not in dispute, and their legal representative, their father, instituted both the suits claiming compensations, which were decreed by the trial court.

2. The facts giving rise to the institution of two suits are virtually one and the same. The respondent is the father of both the deceased, namely, Shyamal Kalai and Sachis Kalai. On 4-6-2010 at about 1.30 PM, when the said Shyamal Kalai was proceeding on foot for work towards Bramhyachara, he came into contact with live electric wire, which was lying on the katcha road near his house. On seeing this, his brother, the said Sachis Kalai rushed to rescue him and in his attempt to rescue him, he also came into contact with electric shock. Both of them were shifted to Teliamura Gramin Hospital where they were declared dead by the doctor. Teliamura P.S. registered UD Case No. 25/2010 U/s 174 Cr.P.C. in that connection; post mortem examination was performed on their dead bodies. The Medical Officer performing the post mortem examination opined that the cause of death in both the cases was due to electrocution. The said Shyamal Kalai was aged about 38 years whereas Sachis Kalai was 30 years old at the time of the incident. Both were laborers by profession and were earning Rs. 4,000/- per month each on average. Claiming that both the deceased died due to the negligence and carelessness of the appellant- Corporation, the respondent instituted the two suits separately for a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- each for the death of his two sons. Both the suits were contested by the appellants by filing their written statements wherein they denied any responsibility for the death of the two deceased and claimed that they were very careful in maintaining their electric lines and that the accidents did not place for any negligence of their employees. They also denied that both the victims did not die by coming into contact with any live wire of the Corporation.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agartala framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature?

2. Whether the deceased Shyamal Kalai died out of electrocution?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any decree as prayed for?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief/reliefs?

4. The plaintiff-respondent examined three witnesses including himself and exhibited some documentary evidence to substantiate his claims. No evidence was, however, led on behalf of the appellants. At the conclusion of the trial, both the suits were decreed i.e. awarding a sum of Rs. 4,12,500/- with interest @8% from the date of instituting the suit in the case of Money Suit No. 22/11 and a sum of Rs. 3,88,500/- with the same rate of interest from the date of instituting the suit in the case of Money Suit No. 21/11. Raising grievance against the two judgments, the appellant-Corporation preferred Money Appeals No. 12 and 13 of 2013 before the learned District Judge, West Tripura. The learned District Judge after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the two second appeals are filed by the appellant-Corporation.

5. While admitting both the appeals, this Court formulated the following question to be a substantial question of law:

Whether the compensation as calculated by the trial court and as affirmed by the appellate court is according to the law pronounced by the Apex Court?

6. The main contention of Ms. R. Purkayashtha, the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals is that when