IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH 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 Digitally signed (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA

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 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. 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?

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 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