Allowed

Smt. C. Anjali v. the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2024WP/11070/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dependants of a man who died by electrocution from a BESCOM pumpset connection sought compensation under Article 226. Rejecting the maintainability objection, the court applied Motor Vehicles Act principles, quantified Rs.17,68,332 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Rs.17,68,332 compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till realization

Smt. C. Anjali Vs the Bengaluru… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12853 WP No. 11070 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 11070 OF 2019 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. C. ANJALI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, W/O LATE ANAND POOJAR @ H.T.ANANDAPPA POOJAR,

¶9

MADHU, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, S/O LATE ANAND POOJAR @ H T ANANDAPPA POOJAR,

¶10

HARSHA, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, S/O LATE ANAND POOJAR @ H.T.ANANDAPPA POOJAR,

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER – 1^ST PETITIONER. ALL ARE R/O NERALAGI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM) CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12853 WP No. 11070 of 2019

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., O & M DIVISION, KEB CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE – 577 001.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V), BESCOM RURAL SUB-DIVISION, OPPOSITE TO STADIUM, HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE – 577 001.

¶20

THE SECTION OFFICER, BESCOM, ANAGODU VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.D.ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY RS.19,75,000/- AS COMPENSATION TOWARDS THE DEATH OF ANAND POOJAR ALIAS ANANDAPPA POOJAR, THE HUSBAND OF PETITIONER NO.1 AND FATHER PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 DUE TO ELECTROCUTION WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF DEATH TILL REALIZATION AS PRAYED FOR IN ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 died on 13.11.2014 due to electrocution, and the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction for the respondents to pay just and proper compensation for the death of their husband and father attributed to negligence by the respondents. The mother-in-law of petitioner No.1's husband obtained an electricity connection from BESCOM for the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12853 WP No. 11070 of 2019

¶28

pumpset to irrigate her land. On 13.11.2014, petitioner No.1's husband went to the mother-in-law's agricultural land to irrigate standing chilly crops. Since there was no power supply, he tried to start the motor, and when it didn't start, he checked it with a tester. At that moment, highvoltage electricity entered the motor, causing the deceased to come into contact with it and resulting in his death due to electrocution. Hence, this petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1383/2020 and connected petitions, wherein under identical circumstances, compensation was granted to the claimant by adopting the method under the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 argues that since disputed facts are involved, the present petition is not maintainable, and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional civil court to adjudicate their claims. He further argues that the question of negligence cannot be addressed in this petition and must be adjudicated by the civil court after affording an opportunity to the parties. He also contends that the accident was not a result of the rash and negligent act of the respondents' personnel, and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, seeking dismissal of the petition.

¶31

The fact that petitioner No.1's husband died due to electrocution is not in dispute, and an FIR was registered in Crime No.152/2014 against four accused persons who are personnel of the respondents. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the report submitted by the Electric Inspector, which indicates negligence attributed to the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12853 WP No. 11070 of 2019

¶33

respondents' personnel. The Electric Inspector, examined as PW.9 in C.C.No.667/2015, admitted that petitioner No.1's husband died due to electrocution and further attributed negligence to both him and the respondents' personnel. After investigation, the Electric Inspector submitted a detailed report attributing negligence to the respondents' personnel.

¶34

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1383/2020 and connected cases disposed of on 04.08.2022 in identical circumstances has ruled as follows:

¶35

"18. Insofar as the contention that the writ petition is not maintainable, it is to be noticed that the Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Public Law Remedy is de-hors the remedy available to claim compensation under the Private Law Remedy before the Civil Courts.

¶36

19. The breach of a statutory obligation resulting in harm to a person can be sought to be addressed by way of a Public Law Remedy through a petition under Article 226. The compensation granted in such an action is made in the nature of making monetary amends for such breach of statutory duty by a State Authority.

¶37

C. Relegation to Civil Court after granting provisional compensation :-

¶38

20. It is the contention of the respondents that the only appropriate remedy is to relegate the parties to invoke remedy available in the nature of claim for damages in an action based on law of torts before the appropriate Civil Courts.

¶39

21. It is contended that the disputed facts which may arise in relation to the cause of the accident and also quantification of damages as regards income earning capacity and economic potential of a child. As an alternative argument, it is also contended that the petitioners having accepted compensation in terms of the decision of the Government pursuant to recommendation of the Child Rights Commission following the order of this Court in

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12853 WP No. 11070 of 2019

¶41

W.P.No.48907/2018 and W.P.No.26329/2018. The remaining grievance is to be redressed by the Civil Court which are competent to enter into an adjudication of disputed facts.

¶42

22. It is also contended that even if it is accepted that present remedy is a Public Law Remedy and the petitioners cannot be relegated to the Civil Court, an appropriate manner of construing such enforcement of Public Law Remedy would be to relegate the petitioners to the Civil Court after payment of solatium.

¶43

23. It is also pertinent to note that the contention of the respondents in the alternate that after grant of compensation by way of Exgratia/Solatium under the Government Order, as regards the claim of further compensation matter is to be relegated to the Civil Court as such determination of compensation would involve disputed facts is also liable to be rejected. The Division Bench of this Court in Bhagyabai (supra) has specifically observed at Para 11 that guidance could be obtained from the judgment of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another13, wherein parameters relating to grant of compensation has been considered. The court then adopted the principles followed in assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and quantified compensation. Accordingly, even as regards quantification of compensation, the courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction could adopt principles available under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Employees Compensation Act without relegating the parties to the Civil Court.

¶44

40. The compensation could be quantified in terms of settled principles as applied in Motor Vehicles Accidents cases. Solely on the ground that determination of compensation would involve certain factual consideration, that by itself will not be a ground to relegate the petitioners to the Civil Court as recorded supra. Taking note of the law laid down in Bhagyabai (supra) at Para 11, wherein the court has adopted the principles as applicable under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation is determined in the present case following the same principle."

¶45

The ratio enunciated is that: a) A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of public law

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12853 WP No. 11070 of 2019

¶47

remedy is distinct from the remedy available to claim compensation under private law remedy before civil courts.

¶48

b) Breach of statutory obligation resulting in harm can be addressed through a public law remedy under Article 226, with compensation granted for such breach by a state authority.

¶49

c) Disputed facts regarding the cause of an accident and quantification of damages, such as income earning capacity and economic potential of a child, can be addressed in a civil court. However, principles from the Motor Vehicles Act or the Employees Compensation Act can be applied in determining compensation without relegating the parties to the civil court.

¶50

d) The court can adopt principles from relevant statutes, such as the Motor Vehicles Act, for quantifying compensation in writ jurisdiction cases, without necessarily referring the matter to civil courts solely based on the involvement of factual considerations.

¶51

Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the present petition is not maintainable is rejected , and the petitioners are entitled for the compensation to be quantified in terms of settled principles as applied in the motor vehicle accident cases.

¶52

In light of the above, by taking the notional income of the deceased , the calculation would be as under:

¶53

Age of the victim : 27 years 2. Occupation of the deceased: Agriculturist 3. No. of Dependents : wife(29yrs) sons(5and 9yrs) 4. Multiplier applicable : 17

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:12853 WP No. 11070 of 2019

¶55

Deduction towards personal expenses : 1/3^rd 6. Future prospects : 40% 7. Monthly income as per Lok-Adalath Chart is Rs.8,500 (8,500 X 1/3=2,833) (8,500-2833=5667) (5,667X 40/100= 2,266) (5,667+2,266)=7,993/: 7,993/8. Loss of dependency 7,993 X 12 X 17 : 16,18,332/-

¶56