Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Smt. Veda @ Vedavathi

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2024WA/62/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by BESCOM against an order directing payment of compensation to the heirs of a deceased employee who died due to electrocution caused by live cables. The court upheld the Single Judge's reasoning and quantum of compensation.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal and interlocutory application were dismissed, upholding the order directing payment of compensation.

The Managing Director Vs Smt. Veda @ Vedavathi — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 62 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. P.S.DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶10

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM, K.R.CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O & M) BESCOM BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION BENGALURU …APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SHRI. T.S. VENKATESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. VEDA @ VEDAVATHI W/O M.S. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶17

KUM. KAVYASHREE D/O M.S. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶18

KUM. PADMASHREE W/O M.S. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶19

SMT.LEELAMMA W/O M. SREEKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.380 4^TH ‘B’ MAIN, MARUTHI LAYOUT VASANTHAPURA

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 62 of 2024

¶23

BENGALURU-560 061

¶24

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP), REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER CORPORATION CIRCLE

¶25

BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.08.2023 IN WP NO.41765/2016 BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU BENCH AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Managing Director of BESCOM¹ and one of the officials have challenged the order dated August 17, 2023 in W.P.No.41765/2016 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge directing payment of compensation of Rs.14,73,164/to the writ petitioners.

¶30

Heard Shri T.S.Venkatesha, learned advocate for the appellant both on delay and merits.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are, legal heirs of one Shri M.S.Krishnamurthy have brought the instant writ petition contending inter alia that Krishnamurthy died due to electrocution when he came in contact with live cable. On consideration of material on record, Hon’ble Single Judge has

¶32

1 Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 62 of 2024

¶35

noted M.P.Electricity Board Vs.Shail Kumari and Others² and held that BESCOM and BBMP³ are liable to pay compensation. Having perused the quantum of compensation awarded in para 13, we are of the view that Hon’ble Single Judge has awarded compensation in consonance with National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi⁴ .

¶36

4. Shri Venkatesha, urged following contentions;

¶37

(i) that writ petition is not maintainable in a case of this nature;

¶38

(ii) in M.P.Electricity Board, the aggrieved party had initially approached the Civil Court;

¶39

(iii) BBMP is also a party-respondent in the writ petition and liable to pay; and

¶40

(iv) that though liability is held jointly and severally against both BESCOM and BBMP, the ratio of liability is not forthcoming in the order.

¶41

With regard to first and second contentions that writ petition is not maintainable and the argument that legal heirs of the deceased ought to have approached the Civil Court,

¶42

2 2002 (2) SCC 162

¶43

3 Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

¶44

4 2017 (16) SCC 680

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 62 of 2024

¶47

we may record that factum of death of Shri Krishnamurthy is not denied. His age is also not denied. The Hon’ble Single Judge has calculated the compensation based on the notional income. The date of death is 03.08.2014. If the contention of the appellant is to be accepted that the respondents will have to be relegated to the Civil Court. Having noticed that compensation is calculated based on Pranay Sethi

¶48

it would not be appropriate to relegate writ petitioners to the Civil Court after lapse of nearly one decade.

¶49

With regard to contention that liability is apportioned between BBMP and BESCOM, we may record that both are instrumentalities of the State. It is settled that instrumentalities of the State or the State Authority shall not litigate interse between themselves. We trust and hope that the departments, if aggrieved, can resolve dispute interse by approaching the administrative higher-ups.

¶50

In view of the above discussion and having considered the appeal both on merits and delay, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed . Consequently, I.A.No.1/2024 also stands dismissed .

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:5816-DB WA No. 62 of 2024

¶53

In view of disposal of this appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of .

No costs.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

The Managing Director v. Smt. Veda @ Vedavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Smt. Veda @ Vedavathi

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 Uma L Raju Vs Sri G Malakondaiah

Sri. Mirle Varadaraj Vs Sri. Dayananda. K. a.

K R Keshava Reddy Vs Smt. Sridevi

Sri Mahesh Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Allwin Scientifics Vs Dr Nagalaxmi B N

Allwin Scientifics Vs Sri Naveen Kumar Raju S IAS