Dismissed

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply v. C K Manjula

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2021RSA/458/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a regular second appeal filed by an electricity corporation challenging a judgment and decree. The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the defendant officials were negligent for leaving an electric wire loose, dismissing the appeal and confirming the compensation order.

What did the court decide?

The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment directing payment of compensation was confirmed.

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Vs C K Manjula — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶6

R.S.A. No.458/2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BEHIND SUVARNA HOTEL, HASSAN-573201, HASSAN DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER.

¶9

2 . EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORTION LTD., CIRCLE OFFICE, SANTHEPET, HASSAN-573201, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶10

3 . ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELE.) CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORTION LTD., SUB-DIVISION, BELUR, 573115, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶11

4 . CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., SARASWATHIPURAM,

¶12

¶13

MYSORE-56, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(By SRI N KRISHNANANDA GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

1 . C K MANJULA WIFE OF LATE T.C.MAHESHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: THOLALU VILLAGE, AREHALLY HOBLI, BELUR TALUK-573115. 2 . T M GNANESHA SON OF LATE T.C.MAHESHA, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, R/AT: THOLALU VILLAGE, AREHALLY HOBLI, BELUR TALUK-573115. MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN:SMT.C.K.MANJULA. 3 . T M VARUNA SON OF LATE T.C.MAHESHA, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, R/AT: THOLALU VILLAGE, AREHALLY HOBLI, BELUR TALUK-573115. MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN:SMT.C.K.MANJULA.

¶18

4 . THE PRESIDENT KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVANA, BANGALORE-560009.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(RESPONDENTS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 06.08.2013 PASSED IN

¶22

¶23

R.A.NO.19/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.39/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JDUGE, BELUR.

¶24

THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2013 passed in RA.No.19/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge, Belur dismissing the appeal, filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2012 passed in OS.No.39/2019 by the Civil Judge, Belur, wherein, suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed.

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court.

¶28

The plaint averments are that husband of plaintiff

¶29

No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3- T.C.Mahesh was proceeding in his Tractor bearing registration No.KA-18-507, with the fuel loaded from the Coffee garden, on their way, the electric wire which was fixed in between two polls had

¶30

¶31

loosened and was left lay on the road. As a result, loaded fuel in the tractor came into contact with the live electric wires and husband of the plaintiff No.1 died due to electric shock at the spot. It is the case of the plaintiffs that said accident took place due to negligence on the part of the defendant-authorities, who are responsible to safeguard the interest of the public from the live electric wires and as such, the plaintiffs have filed OS No.39/2009 on the file of trial court seeking compensation/damages.

¶32

After service of summons, the defendants

¶33

entered appearance and filed detailed written statement contending that the death of Sri.T.C.Mahesh was on account of his negligent driving of the tractor, due to which, electric line came in contact with the fuel loaded in the tractor and as a result of the same, T.C.Mahesh died at the spot due to electric shock. The defendants denied the relief sought for in the plaint. It is also contended by the defendants that the suit is barred by time and owner of the vehicle/owner of coffee garden or the Insurance Company were not made as

¶34

¶35

parties in the suit and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the parties and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶36

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court

¶37

has formulated following issues for its consideration:

¶38

Whether the plaintiffs prove that due to the negligence of KPTCL/defendants, the husband of the first plaintiff died at the spot ?

¶39

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants are liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% P.A. ?

¶40

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the relief sought ?

¶41

4. What order or decree ?

¶42

In order to prove their case, first plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and examined another witness as PW2 and got marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and produced one document as Ex.D1.

¶43

¶44

The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 28.02.2012, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as damages with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the suit till its realization. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants have preferred Regular Appeal in RA.No.19/2012, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs have also filed RA No.5/2013 seeking enhancement of compensation. Both the parties addressed the points for consideration before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the facts on record, by its common judgment and decree dated 06.02.2013 dismissed both the appeals, directing the defendant-authorities to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the plaintiffs excluding Rs.1,00,000/-, which was already paid to the plaintiffs with interest @ 6% per annum till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the judgments and decree passed by the

¶45

¶46

Courts below, the defendants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

¶47

Sri.H.V.Devaraj, learned counsel for the

¶48

appellants submits that both the courts below have not appreciated the material on record and have passed impugned judgments and decree by fastening the liability on the defendant-authorities, which is not correct. He further contended that the alleged accident took place due to negligence on the part of the deceased-T.C.Mahesh, who came in contact with the live electric wire and there is no negligence on the part of defendant-authorities in maintaining the electric polls and live wires therein. In that view of the matter, death of T.C.Mahesh, is on account of Act of God. Therefore, the defendants ought not to have been saddled with the award of compensation. Therefore, he argued that impugned judgments and decree passed by the Courts below call for interference in this appeal.

¶49

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the material on record.

¶50

¶51

On perusal of findings recorded by both the courts below and considering submissions made by learned counsel, there is no dispute that husband of the plaintiff No.1- Sri.T.C.Mahesh died on 14.06.2008 while he was driving the tractor bearing registration No.KA-18-507 while came into contact with the live electric wire, which was not properly fixed between two polls. In this regard, I have carefully considered the evidence of PW1 and PW2. However, the defence of DW1 would make it clear that due blustery weather and rainfall on that day, branch of the tree

¶52

had fallen, due to which, a binding wire was disconnected and line was hanging on the road. Hence, hanging wire came into contact with the loaded fuel in the tractor and as such, accident took place. DW1 deposed that it is an Act of God and not the negligence of the defendants. However, at paragraphs 15, 16 and 18 of its judgment, the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the death of T.C.Mahesh was on account of coming in to contact with the loosened live electric wire and the same is due to negligence on the part of defendants. I

¶53

¶54

do not find any illegality in the finding as the trail Court after appreciating the material on record, held that, due to negligence of the defendants, the husband of the plaintiff No.1 died and as such, trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

¶55

I have also noticed that accident occurred on 14.06.2008 and suit was filed on 17.03.2009. Article 82 of the Limitation Act, prescribes the period of limitation for filing a suit. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit within a period of two years from the date of the death of T.C.Mahesh. I am of the view that the claim put forward by the plaintiffs cannot be thrown away on the technical ground of limitation. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. On considering the findings recorded by the trial Court, it is evident that death of T.C.Mahesh took place on coming to contact with loosened live electric wire, left lay on the road. It is the negligence and failure on the part of the officials of defendant-authorities in discharging public duty,

¶56

¶57

and as such, the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. I have also carefully considered the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, particularly, on appreciation of evidence of PW2 and DW1, has come to the conclusion that the death of T.C.Mahesh took place due to, negligence on the part of the officials of defendant-authorities in not maintaining the electric wires in safe manner and in that view of the matter,

¶58

both the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs.

¶59

Therefore, I do not find any material irregularity or perversity in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal Stands dismissed . As the plaintiff/appellant has not made out grounds for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, appeal is dismissed at admission stage itself.

¶60

¶61

The First Appellate Court has rightly directed the defendants to pay Rs.3,00,000/- with interest to the plaintiffs after deducting Rs.1,00,000/- out of Rs.4,00,000/-, which remains unaltered.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply v. C K Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply v. C K Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharadamma Vs Smt Venkatamma

Smt Sarojamma Vs Sri K B Nagaraja

Smt. Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Ameenabee W/O Kothnur Mohideen, Vs Sri Basha Sab

Rajegowda Vs Laxmamma

Sri Kurlappa Vs the Chief Secretary