Challenging impugned judgment and decree dated

25.06.2018 passed in R.A.No.142/2017 by VI Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, by modifying judgment and decree

dated 03.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.43/2015 by Prl. Senior Civil

Judge & CJM, Tumakuru, this second appeal is filed by

appellants.

2. Appellants were plaintiffs no.1 to 6 in suit and

respondents no.1 to 6 in first appeal. Whereas, respondent was

defendant in suit and appellant in first appeal. For sake of

convenience, parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per

their ranks in trial Court.

3. O.S.No.43/2015 was filed by plaintiffs claiming

compensation on account of death of Ranganath due to

electrocution. It was their case that plaintiff no.1 is wife,

plaintiffs no.2 to 4 are children and plaintiffs no.5 and 6 are

parents of deceased Ranganath. It was averred in plaint that

deceased was working as tenant under Bommegowda. While he

was working in fields on 29.08.2009 at about 4.30 p.m., he

came in contact with live electric wire lying in middle of paddy

- 4 -

crop and due to electrocution, died at spot. Thereafter father of

deceased lodged complaint with Sira police. Case was

registered in UDR No.29/2009 against defendant and submitted

final report. It was their case that death was on account of

negligence of defendant, as defendant was bound to take

precaution and maintain livewires in good condition. It was

stated in plaint that defendant has paid `1,00,000/- to plaintiff

towards cremation, transportation and other expenses and

assured that they will give more compensation, but in vain. It

was their case that deceased was sole bread earning member

of family, due to his untimely death they were put to misery.

Therefore, plaintiffs filed present suit against defendant for

compensation.

4. On issuance of suit summons, defendant appeared

entrance and denied plaint averments. It contended that suit

was not maintainable. It was further contended that after

receiving `1,00,000/-, plaintiffs gave undertaking that they

would not approach Civil Court for higher compensation. It was

also contended that neither owner of land nor any other villager

informed defendant about incident. It was further contended

that Investigating officer gave report stating that death was

- 5 -

accidental, therefore they were not entitled for compensation.

There was delay of 5-6 years in filing suit. Hence sought for

dismissal of suit as barred by limitation.

5. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following

issues:

Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are

the legal representatives of deceased

Ranganath?

Whether

the

plaintiffs

prove

that

Ranganath died due to negligence on the

part of defendant?

Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are

entitled for the damages as contended?

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the

relief claimed?

What order or decree the parties entitled

for?

6. To establish their case, plaintiff no.5 was examined

as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6. On behalf of

defendant, Superintendent Engineer, BESCOM was examined

himself as DW.1, but did not choose to adduce documentary

evidence.

7. Thereafter trial Court on consideration of evidence on

record, answered issue nos.1 to 4 in affirmative and issue no.5

by decreeing suit of plaintiffs and awarded total compensation

- 6 -

of `13,00,000/- and excluding `1,00,000/- already paid by

defendant, `12,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of

suit till realisation.

8. Assailing same, defendant filed R.A.No.142/2017 on

several grounds. It was contended that impugned judgment

and decree passed by trial Court was opposed to law and facts

of case. It erred in answering issues in favour of plaintiff and

decreeing suit. It was contended that along with appeal,

I.A.No.5 was also filed for condonation of delay. Therefore,

sought for allowing appeal.

9. Though plaintiffs entered appearance in first appeal,

they did not file objections to said application.

10. On perusal of evidence and entire records, first