Partly allowed

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. Bibijan Bashasab Mulla

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2023WP/83468/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed cross writ petitions challenging a Permanent Lok Adalat's award in a death by electrocution case. The Court upheld the Lok Adalat's negligence finding but increased compensation to Rs. 5,91,100 based on notional income and statutory deductions, with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners entitled to Rs. 5,91,100 plus 6% p.a. interest from date of petition. Respondents to pay within six weeks.

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Bibijan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 84168 of 2013 C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 84168 OF 2013 (GM-RES)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 83468 OF 2013

¶9

IN WP NO.84168/2013:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. BEBIJAN BASHASAB MULLA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SALAPUR, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶12

KUM. IBRAHIMSAB S/O. BASHASAB MULLA , AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SALAPUR, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶13

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶14

KUM. RAMJANSAB S/O. BASHASAB MULLA, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SALAPUR, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶15

SINCE THE PETITIONERS NO.3 BEING A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC), O & M SUB-DIVISION, HESCOM MUDHOL,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 84168 of 2013 C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013

¶22

TALUK: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶23

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELEC), HESCOM, O & M DIVISION, JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶24

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR , HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.04.2013 UNDER O.P.NO.210/2009 PASSED BY THEPERMANENT LOK-ADALATH BELGAUM VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS CONCERNED AND AWARD JUST AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION UNDER THE ALL PERMISSIBLE HEADS.

¶28

IN WP NO.83468/2013:

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELEC) O & M SUB DIVISION HESCOM MUDHOL, TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶31

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HESCOM, O & M DIVISION, JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶32

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI, DIST: HUBLI.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 84168 of 2013 C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013

¶35

…PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SRI G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

SMT. BIBIJAN BASHASAB MULLA, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SALAPUR, TQ: RAMDURG.

¶39

KUM. IBRAHIMSAB S/O. BASHASAB MULLA , AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SALAPUR, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶40

KUM. RAMJANSAB S/O. BASHASAB MULLA , AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF O.P.NO.210/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BELGAUM; QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.04.2013 MADE IN O.S.NO.210/2009 PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BELGAUM PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶44

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 84168 of 2013 C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013

¶47

COMMON ORDER

¶48

Aggrieved by the order passed in O.P. No.210/2009 by the Court of Permanent Lok Adalat, Belagavi, the petitioners have preferred W.P. No.84168/2013 and respondents therein have preferred W.P. No.83468/2013.

¶49

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

¶50

Petitioners are wife and children of late Bashasab Mulla. He was working on the fields belonging to his brother and was helping fixing of the bore-well. The respondents had laid electrical wires in the lands of the brother of the deceased. While fixing the bore-well, the pipe held by the deceased came in contact with the wire resulting in electrocution and death of Bashasab Mulla. Petitioners made a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat for compensation. Based on the evidence let in, the Permanent Lok Adalat came to a conclusion that the live electric wire was less than 4.6 meters in height, which was mandated by the statute and were also not insulated. This act was held to be negligence on the part of the respondents. Further the accident happened in the broad daylight and the

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 84168 of 2013 C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013

¶52

¶53

deceased was also held to be negligent in not taking care to see as to where that the wires were and whether it touched with the pipe held by him. For that reason, the Permanent Lok Adalat came to a conclusion that the respondents are responsible to an extent of 75% for causing the accident and 25% of negligence is attributed against the deceased.

¶54

I do not see any reason to differ from the

¶55

conclusion of the Permanent Lok Adalat in this regard.

¶56

The next question that arises for consideration is:

¶57

“Whether the compensation awarded is appropriate or not?”

¶58

The Permanent Lok Adalat has adopted the yardstick adopted in Motor Vehicles cases to award compensation and I do not see any error in the same. The only question that arises is about the quantum.

¶59

The accident happened in the year 2007. The petitioners have not established the income of the deceased. Thus it would be appropriate to adopt the notional income as per the chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authority and it would be appropriate to fix the income of the deceased

¶60

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 84168 of 2013 C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013

¶61

at Rs.4,000/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner was aged 35 years at the time of the accident and a multiplier of 16 has to be adopted. Further 40% has to be added towards his income as future prospects and given the fact that he had three dependants, 1/3^rd is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Further Rs.70,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and also loss of consortium. Thus, petitioners would be entitled to a sum of Rs.7,16,800/(Rs.4,000 X 12 X 16 + 40% X 2/3^rd + Rs.70,000/-) as against Rs.5,76,000/-. Thus, the petitioners would be entitled to a sum of Rs.7,86,800/-. If 25% is deducted from the same, towards negligence on the part of the deceased, the petitioners will be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,91,100/- as against Rs.4,65,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶62

Given the bank rate of interest, I am of the opinion that the petitioners would be entitled to an interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat till realization.

¶63

The respondents are directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners within a period of six weeks

¶64

¶65

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 84168 of 2013 C/W WP No. 83468 of 2013

¶66

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after deducting the payments already made.

¶67

The writ petitions are disposed off accordingly.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

RSH / Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. Bibijan Bashasab Mulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. Bibijan Bashasab Mulla

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

Smt. Mamatajbegaum Vs the Chief Engineer

Sri. J.S. Bharatesh S/O J.Sheshanagouda Vs Chief Officer

Rajendra S/O. Santappa Harijan Vs the Commissioner for Food

Mrs.Lavanya Narasimha Joshi Vs the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager

Bebijan Bashasab Mulla Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec)

Union of India Vs Shri. Mohan Babu