Territorial jurisdiction can be established where the effects of the wrongful act are felt, allowing the plaintiff to file a suit locally under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 20223)

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 100 of 2004 on the files of the Sub-

Judge, Nedumangad is the appellant and the respondents were the defendants therein. The suit was filed claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- together with future interest at the rate of 18 %

p.a from the defendants and their assets.

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:-

2. The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased Nisamol who passed away on 02.06.2001 in New Delhi at the residences of defendants 1 and 2. She is residing in Lekshamveedu colony having no means of her own other than 4 cents of property and has small building thereon. The plaintiff is a chronic heart patient suffering from other ailments and cannot work to earn her livelihood. She has a son who is blind and invalid. The deceased Nisamol was the only earning member of the family. The 1^st defendant was employed in New Delhi along with his wife, the 2^nd defendant. The 3^rd defendant is the father of the 1^st defendant, and the 4^th defendant is the relative of the 3^rd defendant. Defendants 3 and 4, having close acquaintance with the plaintiff and made a proposal to the plaintiff to take her daughter Nisamol to Delhi to look after the kids of defendants 1 and 2. As plaintiff and her children were in extreme poverty, she was forced to accept the proposal of the 3^rd & 4^th defendant. Accordingly, Nisamol was taken to Delhi on 05.12.2000.

3. On 02.06.2001, the 4^th defendant informed the plaintiff that her daughter was ill and admitted to a hospital in Delhi. The plaintiff was taken to Delhi by Air on that day itself, along with her uncle. The 1^st defendant informed the plaintiff that Nisamol died due to blood cancer. The body of Nisamol was taken back to the native place and buried at the graveyard of Mangalappally Jama Ath, Mathira. The plaintiff suspected that the death of the daughter was due to the ill treatment of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff was shattered by the unnatural death of her only daughter, the only earning member of the family. The plaintiff has lost all her amenities, ambition, happiness, peace of mind, and everything in her life. The defendants are jointly and severally liable for putting the plaintiff in misery. Though a notice was issued to the defendants to pay compensation, they were not amenable, so the suit was filed.

4. The defendants proceeded with the suit by filing a written statement. It was contended that the 2^nd defendant is employed in New Delhi and Nisamol was taken as a maidservant to work as a babysitter for their one and half-year-old baby, on the representation of the plaintiff to take her as a domestic servant. The salary was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per month, and the amount was being regularly sent by cheque to the bank of the plaintiff. When taking the plaintiff’s daughter to Delhi, the plaintiff was told that Nisamol was having ailments of bleeding through her nose, and therefore, she was treated at AIIMS, New Delhi. On

02.06.2001, when defendants 1 and 2 went out and returned by 8.00 pm; the house was locked, and when they peeped thought the window, it was found that Nisamol was hanging. The matter was informed to the police, and postmortem examination was conducted by the Forensic Department of AIIMS and the dead body was taken back by Air, and the 1^st defendant had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1.5 Lakh for that. The Delhi Police submitted a report finding it as a suicide case.

5. The learned Sub Judge, after framing t