IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 106 of 2009()
1. RAGHAVAN, AGED 57, S/O. VELUMBAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. SUB ENGINEER,
4. SHAJI,
5. RAMACHANDRAN,
6. SANTHA, AGED 55, W/O. VELUMBAN,
7. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 30, S/O. VELUMBAN,
8. AJITHA, AGED 28, D/O. VELUMBAN,
9. AJAYAN, AGED 26, S/O. VELUMBAN,
10. ANITHA, AGED 22, S/O. VELUMBAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :24/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
——————————————————–
FAO NO.106 OF 2009
——————————————————–
Dated 24th July 2009
Judgment
BHAVADASAN, J.
The parents of Ajesh, who was electrocuted while doing
the work of shifting the electric line, have instituted the suit
before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara for compensation. The
compensation claimed was Rs.5 lakhs. The court fee directed to
be paid was Rs.48,000/-. The appellants pointed out that they
had no means to pay the court fee and hence they may be
permitted to institute the suit as indigent persons. A petition to
that effect was filed. Notice was served on respondents 1, 2, 3
and 5. Later, the 4th respondent was also served. The case was
posted to 28.11.2008. On that day, there was no response from
the respondents. They were set ex parte and the matter was
posted on the next day i.e., 29.11.2008.
FAO 106/09 2
2. It is claimed by the appellants that their counsel
informed the court that it was virtually impossible to inform his
clients about the posting of the case on the next day because
they were residing in a far away place. The learned counsel
also filed a petition praying for adjournment of the case, but that
was dismissed. On 18.12.2008, a review petition was filed and
notice was ordered. On 03.03.2009, the review petition was
dismissed for default in taking steps to have the summons
issued to the respondents. Based on the said order, OP (Papur)
No.6/06 was also dismissed. The plaintiffs were directed to pay
the court fee. The said order is challenged in this appeal.
3. The plaintiffs before the court below had pointed out that
they were unable to pay the court fee and they did not have the
capacity to raise any funds. There was no defect in the petition
filed by them and it is seen from the records that notice had
been served on almost all the respondents. It is specifically
pointed out that the learned counsel for the plaintiffs had prayed
FAO 106/09 3
for adjournment of the case on the ground that the time
available was too short to inform the plaintiffs. The prayer for
adjournment of the case was refused. There was nothing to
indicate that the plaintiffs were trying to protract the matter under
one pretext or the other. They do not stand to gain by simply
dragging on the proceedings. It is to be noted that the suit is one
for damages consequent on the death of the son of the
appellants due to electric shock. The plaintiffs should have been
given an opportunity to adduce evidence to establish their claim
for informa pauperis. It may also be noticed that the Government
had not filed any report showing that the plaintiffs have assets
from which they can generate funds.
4. Considering the above facts, it is felt that an opportunity
ought to have been given to the plaintiffs to establish that they
have no means to pay the court fee and they are entitled to
institute the suit as indigent persons. In the result, this appeal is
allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The court below is
directed to dispose of the OP (Papur) No.6/06 of the Sub Court,
FAO 106/09 4
Kottarakkara, after giving an opportunity to the appellants to
adduce evidence in accordance with law and in the light of what
has been stated herein above.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
FAO 106/09 5