Appellate Court may enhance tortious compensation without cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC.

On July 18, 2011, the respondents' predecessor died due to electrocution from an electrical pole maintained by the appellant-Electricity Company

The original plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000, alleging poor maintenance

The Trial Court found the appellant negligent, specifically noting the absence of a mandatory earthing wire on the pole, and awarded Rs. 5,54,000 with 7.5% interest

The first Appellate Court confirmed the finding of negligence but enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9,24,300, despite the absence of a cross-objection by the plaintiffs

The appellant then preferred this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC

1. Whether the Courts below erred in holding the Electricity Company liable for negligence in the absence of cogent evidence proving the factum of electrocution

2. Whether the first Appellate Court had the jurisdiction to enhance compensation in favor of the respondents in the absence of a cross-objection or cross-appeal

3. Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding negligence and the quantum of compensation warrant interference in a Second Appeal

Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which limits Second Appeals to "substantial questions of law" rather than re-appreciation of facts

Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC, which empowers an Appellate Court to pass any decree or order that ought to have been passed, even in the absence of a cross-objection by the respondent

Principles of "just compensation" in tortious death cases as established by the Supreme Court in Surekha & Ors. v. Santosh & Ors. (2021)

Restriction of scope of review following Jaichand v. Sahnulal (2024) and Rabindranath Panigrahi v. Surendra Sahu (2025), which prohibit re-appreciation of evidence in Section 100 proceedings

The Court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the lack of evidence of negligence, pointing to the testimony of the appellant's own witness (Exh. 55), who admitted the electrical pole lacked a mandatory earthing wire

This failure created a prima facie presumption of negligence that the appellant failed to rebut with credible evidence

Regarding the enhancement of compensation without a cross-objection, the Court held that under Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC, the Appellate Court is not "powerless" to grant relief where the original compensation was inadequate or not in accordance with law

The Court observed that in cases involving death due to tortious acts, the judiciary is duty-bound to award "adequate, just and reasonable compensation"

The enhancement was found justified as the Trial Court had assessed the deceased's monthly income too low (Rs. 3,000) for an accident in 2011; the Appellate Court’s reassessment at Rs. 6,800 was deemed reasonable rather than an "excessive windfall"

The court affirmed the Appellate Court's decision to enhance the compensation to Rs. 9,24,300, confirming that the absence of a cross-objection does not bar the court from awarding just compensation under Order 41 Rule 33

The connected Civil Application for stay was also disposed of