Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Abdulwahab S/O Abdulrahimsab Jalegar

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2021WP/103976/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by the Electricity Department challenging an award of Rs. 13.04 lakh for compensation due to the death by electrocution of a construction worker. The Court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The registry was directed to release the deposited amount in favour of the respondents forthwith, and the petitioners were directed to deposit the balance compensation

The Managing Director Vs Abdulwahab… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

W.P. No.103976/2016 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO.LTD., NAVA NGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶9

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HESCOM, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD.

¶10

PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.B.M.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ABDULWAHAB S/O ABDULRAHIMSAB JALEGAR, AGE:57 YRS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O DANUNAGAR, DHARWAD.

¶14

SMT. HEENA KOUSAR W/O MUKTHIHAR AHMED JALEGAR AGE:30 YRS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O C/O FARUK MULLA, DHANU NAGAR ATTIKOLLA, DHARWAD.

¶15

KUM. FAHAD S/O MUKTHIYAR AHMED JALEGAR (R/BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS A MINOR BY GUARDIAN) (RESPONDENT NO.4 BEFORE PLA)

¶16

RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B.S.SANGATI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, DHARWAD IN PLA PETITION NO.216/2015 DATED 11.02.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXUREA AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is directed against the impugned

¶23

judgment and award dated 11.02.2016 passed in PLA petition No.216/2015 by the Permanent Lok Adalath, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PLA’, for short), whereby the said petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the Lok Adalath thereby awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.13,04,000/- in their favour towards death of their son – Muktiar Ahmed, who died on account of electrocution.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶25

The material on record indicates that the respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of deceased Muktiar Ahmed while respondent No.3 is his younger brother. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted the aforesaid proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalath seeking compensation from the petitioners / Authorities inter alia contending that

¶26

¶27

when the deceased Muktiar Ahmed was working as a construction worker on 17.09.2011, he came in contact with the live electric wire which was not provided with any safety guard / mechanism pursuant to which, the said person died on account of electrocution. It was contended that the petitioners herein were guilty of negligence that they had not only failed to maintain the electrical safely and properly, they had also not taken necessary and sufficient safe guards / protection for the said live wires and that the claimants being the dependant parents and minor brother of the deceased Muktiar Ahmed, they were entitled to compensation towards death of the said person.

¶28

The petitioners / Authorities contested the claim

¶29

petition inter alia contending that the accidental death was not on account of any negligence on the part of the petitioners; it was contended that the building in which the deceased Muktiar Ahmed was working as a construction worker was being constructed without leaving set back and by violating electric rules and consequently, the death of the said person was on account of negligence on the part of

¶30

¶31

the owner of the house and not the petitioners / authorities. It was therefore contended that there was no merit in the claim petition and that the same was liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Pursuant to the PLA framing issues with regard to negligence and quantum of compensation, the claimants examined themselves as PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked on their behalf.

¶33

On behalf of the petitioners, one S.B.Nagaraj, Executive Engineer was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked. After hearing the parties, the PLA came to the conclusion that the death of Muktiar Ahmed on 17.09.2011 by electrocution was due to the negligence of the petitioners / authorities. The PLA also came to the conclusion that the respondents are together entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,04,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. Accordingly, the PLA allowed the claim petition in the above terms, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶34

¶35

A perusal of the entire material on record

¶36

including the impugned judgment and award passed by the PLA will clearly indicate that while coming to the conclusion that the death of Muktiar Ahmed by electrocution was on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioners / authorities, the PLA has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record and held as under:

¶37

“1. The petitioner, Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.2 who have filed their affidavit evidence as PW-1, RW-2 and RW-1 respectively have reiterated the facts pleaded in their pleadings. The fact that on 17.09.2011 at about 2:30 p.m. when Sri. Muktiyar Ahmed was engaged in centering and bar bending work at the first floor of the construction he tried to call his co-workers standing at down stair and while he was so peeping he came in contact with 11 KVA live electric lines by which he was electrocuted and died on the spot is not in dispute. This incident was reported by Respondent No.3 the widow of the deceased to the concerned police on the date of the incident itself as per Ex.P-1. The concerned police draw spot panchanama as per Ex.P3. The inquest was conducted as per Ex.P2. The concerned doctor after conducting PM submitted PM Report as per Ex.Pa4. The police submitted final report as Ex.P6. The Taluka Magistrate submitted reports as per Ex.P7 and P8. All these documents which are undisputed highlight that deceased Sri. Muktiyar Ahmed died due to

¶38

¶39

electrocution as pleaded by the petitioner which incident is also admitted by the Respondent No.2. The only contention of the Respondent No.2 is that as the owner of the house had not left set back while constructing and allowed the distance between first floor and HT and LT Line only 2 feet the responsibility and liability is only on that owner. But this contention in law is not sustainable.

¶40

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, HESCOM in the report enclosed with letter as per Ex.R1 noted that the distance between the construction of first floor and HT – LT line was only 2 feet. He also noticed that the death of Sri. Muktiyar Ahmed was due to electrocution. The concerned police intimated to Electrical Inspector on the same day wherein he has specifically mentioned that 5 electric lines are covered with safety plastic guard, whereas high tension electric wires having no safety guard and hence was electrocuted and died (the report of P.1, is also enclosed to the letter Ex.R1). In the spot panchanama as per Ex.P3 also concerned police noted that those three high tension electric wires which came in contact with Sri. Muktiyar Ahmed had no safety guard. The News paper cutting as per Ex.P5 shows that the electric pole near the house of incident is leaning towards the first floor. The electrical inspector who visited the spot and submitted report as per Ex.R2 has reported that the distance between 11 KVA 5 wire line and the construction is only two feet. But he has specifically mentioned in Para No.IV (3) that the 11 KVA line wires are loose and hanging. One wire from the 11 KVA line which is very loose was found fallen near the grill of the house which was the reason for short distance of 2 feet between the grill and electric line. No

¶41

¶42

doubt he has opined that the owner had not left set back and hence the violation is on the part of the owner. But the fact remains that the reasons for short distance of 2 feet between the grill of the house and the live electric lines is the loose hanging of the wires as reported by the Electrical Inspector. We have also noted above that as per the spot panchanama and the intimation of the Police Inspector to the Electrical Inspector that though 5 electric lines are covered with safety guard remaining 3 electrical lines had not safety guard and as such Sri. Mukitiyar Ahmed when came in contact with unsafe electric lines suffered electrocution and died.

¶43

3. The HESCOM which is dealing with hazardous substance of electricity has primary duty to safe guard the electric lines more particularly in the habitant areas. In this context for useful purpose a reference may be made to the case of ARULMERI VS. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, RAMANATHAPURAM AND ANOTHER (2013 (2) M.L.J. 302) wherein his lordship of the Madras High Court while dealing with the case of like nature noted the responsibility of the electricity board as under:-

¶44

“14. IT is clear that Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 stipulates that every overhead electric line erected over any part of a street or other public place or any factory or mine or any consumers premises shall be protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks……”

¶45

¶46

Thus it is obvious that a duty is cast on the respondent HESCOM to take all precautions of safety measures to the electricity which are passing over head of the consumers premises. In the instant case as noted int eh spot panchanama and the report of the police inspector in fact 5 lines are covered with safety guard where as 3 lines are not covered with such safety measures and that is the reason for electrocution to Sri. Muktiyar Ahmed resulting in his death. We may also note the verdict of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka where in the case of

¶47

EXECUTIVE ENGR. O AND M DN.-2 (ELECTRICAL) VS. PRAMOD (2015 (1) KCCR 850) his lordship noted that the death of the deceased by electrocution was admitted and proved from the evidence and the opinion of the doctor. The death by electrocution was not in dispute. His Lordship held that in the circumstances the Principles of Strict Liability as enunciated in Ryland Vs. Fletcher has been made applicable and further held in Para No.10 as under:-

¶48

“10. ………. The Electricity Board cannot absolve liability on grounds that accident took place due to illegal act on part of victim in trying to draw power from mainline unauthorisedly when once the death is to be in the context of functioning of Board. Principle of strict liability applies and Board is bound to compensate the claimants is the law reiterated by this Court in the case of Borawwa W/o. Mallappa Guggari and Anr. Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., and ors.,

¶49

¶50

as reported in (2007 (1) KCCR 645): 2007 (2) AIR Kar. R6.”

¶51

Thus it is obvious that when once the death due to electrocution is admitted or proved the electric board cannot be absolved from the liability on the ground of illegality or negligence on par of the victim. In the case on hand though Sri. Muktiyar Ahmed was trying to bend to call his co-workers he came in contact with the un-guard live electric wire and for that incident he can not be shouldered with any negligence. If the HESCOM had provided safe guard to the live wires near the house of the incident there would not have been the electrocution thereby the HESCOM is liable on the Principles of Strict Liability also.

¶52

4. As referred supra the distance between building terrace and the electric line was hardly 2 feet. The respondents HESCOM has specifically pleaded tht since the owner of the house had not left set back he was responsible. But this defense is not available to the HESCOM as it cannot contend that the negligence was on the owner since the building was constructed within short distance of the electric line, because it was on the part of the HESCOM to take precautions that the distance of electric lines are not within reach causing any incidents. In this regard for useful purpose a reference may be made to the pronouncement of the Apex Court where in the case of H.S.E.B. AND OTHERS VS. RAMNATH AND OTHERS ((2004) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES 793) their Lordships in Para No.6 of the order ruled thus:-

¶53

“6. The appellants are carrying on a business which is inherently dangerous. If a

¶54

¶55

person were to come into contact with a hightension wire, he is bound to receive serious injury and/or die. As they are carrying on a business which is inherently dangerous, the appellants would have to ensure that no injury results from their activities. If they find that unauthorized constructions have been put up close to their wires it is their duty to ensure that construction is got demolished by moving the appropriate authorities and if necessary, by moving a court of law. Otherwise they would take the consequences of their inaction. If there are complaints that there wires are drooping and almost touching houses, they have to ensure that the required distance is kept between the houses and the wires, even though the houses be unauthorized.”

¶56

Thus it is obvious that the respondent HESCOM cannot shit the liability on the owner of the building for not leaving set back. On the other hand we have pointed that at the incident spot though 5 electric lines are provided with safety guard the remaining 3 lines near the house of construction where without any safety guard which was the direct cause for electrocution to Sri. Muktiyar Ahmed resulting in his death. In that view of the matter and in the light of the verdict of the Apex Court and the Hon’ble High Court referred supra we hold that the death of Sri. Muktiyar Ahmed by electrocution was due to the negligence of the respondents HESCOM. We also hold them liable on the Principles of Strict Liability.

¶57

¶58

Accordingly, this point is answered IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

¶59

So also, insofar as compensation is concerned, the PLA has correctly and properly applied well settled principles of law relating to awarding compensation in cases of death on account of electrocution by relying upon principles of awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and has come to the correct conclusion that the respondents are entitled to a sum of Rs.13,04,000/and has apportioned the same among the respondents as held as hereunder:

¶60

Point No.2: As observed in the case of Pramila Khatua Vs. Cesu of Orissa (AIR 2013 Orissa 95), while computing the quantum of compensation in the case of electrocution, the method followed in the Motor Vehicles Act is to be adopted.

¶61

6. The petitioner and the respondent No.3 and 4 pleaded that the deceased Sri. Muktiyar Ahmed was carrying centering and bar bending work. The petitioner claimed global compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The respondent No.3 and 4 in their statement have sought for reasonable compensation. Only in the written argument the learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 and 4 claimed compensation of

¶62

¶63

Rs.10,00,000/-. But no where they pleaded the income of the deceased. They have not placed any material to consider the daily, monthly or yearly income of the deceased. The incident was in the year 2011. Deceased was 26 years at that time. Considering his nature of work which needs specialization we take his daily income as Rs.300/and monthly Rs.9,000/-. The petitioner and respondent No.3 who are his father and wife were the dependants and also minor son Respondent No.4. We decut 1/3 towards his personal expenses. Thereby the loss of dependency would be Rs.6,000/- per month. As mentioned in the inquest and PM Report Ex.P2 and P4 the deceased was 26 years at the time of death. Since the claimants are father, widow and minor son, for the purpose of computing the compensation the age of the deceased has to be taken. As held in the case of Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation (AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104) the appropriate multiplier would be 17. Thereby the loss of dependency would be Rs.6,000/x 12 x 17 = Rs.12,24,000/-. We add conventional amounts of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- for loss of estate to the deceased and love and affection towards respondent No.4. Since the respondent No.3 lost her husband at the very young age of 23 we award a sum of Rs.50,000/towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, we award total compensation of Rs.13,04,000/-.

¶64

¶65

7. The petitioner as father of the deceased claimed compensation independently. Likewise Respondent No.3 and 4 the widow and the minor son of deceased claimed compensation. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and 4 during the course of argument submitted that since the parties are governed by Muslim Personal law, the Respondent No.3 and 4 alone are entitled to compensation by way of inheritance. This argument cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination. We are not at all concerned with the personal law of the parties. The claim is not by way of inheritance in the property of the deceased. The claim is for compensating the death of the son, husband and the father who were dependents on the deceased. In the case of like nature the main criteria is to determine the dependency. Since, the petitioner, respondent No.3 and 4 are considered as dependants on the deceased they are entitled for compensation. The advocate for respondent No.3 and 4 in his written argument at Para No.8 has specifically admitted that the petitioner was depending upon the earning of his deceased son Sri. Muktiyar Ahmed. Since, the petitioner was also dependent on the deceased he is also entitled to compensation. The award of compensation in the motor vehicle cases or cases of electrocution or any other cases of like nature is on the broad principles of General Law. The personal law of the parties cannot be tagged. The petitioner was also dependent on the

¶66

¶67

deceased along with the respondent No.3 and 4 and as such he is also entitled to reasonable compensation.

¶68

8. Having regard to the age of the claimants and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case the amount of compensation of Rs.13,04,000/- is apportioned among the parties as under:-

¶69

Petitioner – Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only)

¶70

Respondent No.3 – Rs.6,04,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Four Thousand Only)

¶71

Respondent No.4 – Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only)

¶72

Accordingly, this point is answered in the affirmative.”

¶73

Upon re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the entire material on record and bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of H.S.E.B. and other Vs.

¶74

Ramnath and others – 2004 (5) SCC 793; this Court in the case of Mallappa Vs. KPTCL – dated 22.11.2006 and Executive Engineer Vs. Pramod – RSA 5343/2011 dated 13.06.2014, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and award passed by PLA does not suffer from any

¶75

¶76

illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶77

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶78

Registry is directed to release the amount in deposit in favour of the respondents forthwith subject to pro-rata apportionment as directed in the impugned judgment and award.

¶79

So also, the petitioners are directed to deposit the balance compensation in terms of the impugned judgment and award and the same may be released in favour of the respondents in terms of the impugned judgment and award.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

am/SV

The Managing Director v. Abdulwahab S/O Abdulrahimsab Jalegar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Abdulwahab S/O Abdulrahimsab Jalegar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.K. Yamunarao W/O Late Shri.K. Sarvottamrao Vs Shri. K. Ananthakrishnarao

Sri.Chandrashekar S/O Tammanna @Tammappa Halakatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Balappa S/O.Shivappa Kaleri Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Devamma W/O Hanumappa Chikkagada Vs Shri Hanumappa S/O Mariyappa Chikkagada

Shri.Basavaraj S/O. Mallikarjun Matolli Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Siddappa S/O Gireppa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka