Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

05.04.2019 in O.S.No.24/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge

and JMFC, Shikaripura, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed

this appeal.

2. Though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A.,

with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for Final

Disposal.

3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred

to as per their status before the trial Court.

4. The unfortunate facts of the case are that one

Nitesh aged about 25 years, who was the only son of the

plaintiffs was working in an Areca Nut Garden belonging to

one Hucharayappa, came in contact with live high tension

wire which was passing above the said land and was

4

electrocuted and died. The case of the plaintiffs is that the

death of their son happened when he was plucking Areca

Nut from Areca Nut tree and due to wind, the high tension

wire got in contact with him. It is their specific contention

that the said wire was in a sagging, dilapidated, damaged

and dangerous condition. It is contended that defendant

No.2

which

is

the

company

bestowed

with

the

responsibility of maintaining the said wire had not

maintained it properly and the death happened due to the

negligence of defendant No.2. It is further contended that

deceased was aged about 25 years old at the time of the

accident and that he was an Agriculturist and was also

doing Horticulture and Animal Husbandry. For the tortious

act on part of defendant No.2 3 Company, the plaintiffs

claimed damages of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. Per contra, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed written

statement and contested the case. It is contended that

there was no negligence on the part of the defendant No.2

3 Company. The deceased was using an aluminum stick to

5

pluck areca nuts and same got in contact with the live

wire, there was electrocution and he died. The reason for

the death is alleged on the deceased himself.

6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has

framed the following issues:-

1.

<Whether the plaintiffs prove that Late Nithesh

died due to gross negligence and tortuous acts of

the defendants as pleaded in the plaint?

2.

Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled

for the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with

interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the

defendants as claimed in the plaint?

3.

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as

claimed?

4.

What order or decree?=

7. The plaintiffs to prove their case examined two

witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 17.

The defendants in support of their case examined two

witnesses as D.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D.1 to D.7.

6

8. Based on the pleadings and evidence let in, the

trial Court has answered the issues in the following

manner:-

Issue No.1:

In the Affirmative

Issue No.2:

In the Partly Affirmative

Issue No.3:

In the Partly Affirmative

Issue No.4:

As per the final order for the

following:

Consequently, the trial Court has passed the

following:-

<ORDER

Suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed with

cost.

The defendants are hereby ordered and

directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,77,200/- with

interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the

suit till realization.

Draw decree accordingly.

Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have

preferred this appeal.

9. It is contended that the trial Court blindly went

with the version of the plaintiffs and has not taken into

7

consideration the evidence let in on behalf of the

defendants and same has been disbelieved without any

justifiable reason. It is contended that the accident

happened due to use of an aluminum stick by the

deceased negligently and when it came into contact with

the live wire the electrocution happened and he died.

Reliance is placed on evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 and also on

Ex.D.2, which is a report of Section Officer, KPTCL and

other exhibits produced by defendant Nos.2 and 3. It is

further contended that even if the Court were to come to

the conclusion that the accident happened due to

negligence on the part of the KPTCL, the t