Smt. Neelavva W/O Puttappa Hulagur Vs Section Officer

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100341 OF 2018 (-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NEELAVVA W/O PUTTAPPA HULAGUR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KADAKOL, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118.

¶8

MAHESH S/O PUTTAPPA HULAGUR AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: KADAKOL, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118.

¶9

LINGARAJ S/O PUTTAPPA HULAGUR AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: KADAKOL, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADV)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SECTION OFFICER, SAVANUR CITY HESCOM, SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110.

¶14

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMARB SHELAR MOHANKUMARB SHELARDate: 2025.09.01 10:53:14 +0530

¶15

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT, SUBDIVISION, HESCOM, SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118.

¶16

MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶17

HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025.

¶18

CHIEF ENGINEER HESCOM, SHIVAGANGA LAYOUT, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580023.

¶19

R.N. JAMALKHANAVAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HESCOM SERVANT, R/O: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

6. RAMESH RATHOD

¶24

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AEE, HESCOM, SAVANUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADV FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADV FOR R5 & R6, NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED)

¶27

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD:23.04.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.358/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR COMPENSATION.

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶32

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2018, passed in O.S.No.358/2018 by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi.

¶33

For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.

¶37

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this

¶38

Regular First Appeal are as follows:

¶39

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants claiming a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- with interest

¶40

due to the death of one Puttappa, who died during the course of employment under the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and Plantiffs No. 2 and 3 are the sons of deceased Puttappa and contended that, on 27.08.2011, defendants No.5 and 6 being employees of HESCOM, instructed the deceased, Puttappa, to carry out repair work at the Motitalab water pump house situated at Huralikoppa Road, Hosalli Cross, Savanur. He followed the instructions of defendants No.5 and 6 and went to the spot to carry out the work but defendants No.5 and 6, did not take proper care and caution to stop supplying the electricity to the water pump

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

house. So, Puttappa started the repair work, and immediately, he suffered a huge electric shock, and died on the spot. The relative of the deceased, Puttappa, filed a complaint with the Savanur Police Station, and a criminal

¶44

case was registered against defendants No.5 and 6 in Crime No.117/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. It is contended that the plaintiffs were depending on the income of the deceased Puttappa. The plaintiffs have lost the sole bread earner in the family. The incident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the defendants No.5 and 6. It is contended that, Defendant No.2 wrote letters to the plaintiff dated 17.01.2012 and 29.03.2012 to receive the compensation.

¶45

The plaintiff replied through a letter dated 05.04.2015, but the defendants did not came fraud to make the payment. However, as a last resort, the plaintiffs issued a notice dated 04.06.2012 to Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 calling upon the defendants to pay the compensation of Rs. 19,00,000/- but the defendents did not make the

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

payment. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs

¶50

to file a suit for compensation/damages. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

¶51

A summons were issued to the defendants.

¶52

Except defendant No.5, defendants No.1, to 4 and 6 appeared through their counsel. Defendant No. 5 was placed exparte.

¶53

Defendant No.2 filed a written statement

¶54

denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit. The deceased Puttappa, without the permission of the defendants, entered the water pump house and negligently touched a burnt fuse without taking care of the supply of electricity, suffered an electric shock and died on the spot. It is also contended that the decease Puttappa was not employee of KEB. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased Puttappa. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the

¶58

parties, framed the following issues:

¶59

1) Whether plaintiffs prove that late Puttappa Hulagur was a licensed labour contractor and working for HESCOM?

¶60

2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that late Puttappa Hulagur died out of and in the course of his employment with the defendants on 27-08-2011, due to negligent act of the defendants?

¶61

3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- with the interest from the defendants?

¶62

4) What order or decree?

¶63

The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW-2, and 40 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-40. In rebuttal, the official of defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1, and no documentary evidence was placed on record.

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

The trial Court, after recording the evidence,

¶67

hearing both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, issue No.3 partly in the affirmative, and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed with costs vide judgment dated 23.04.2018. It is held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,08,320/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 27.09.2011 from the defendants. It is also held that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of the judgment. The plaintiffs, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court, filed this appeal.

¶68

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 3 and defendants No.5 and 6. Despite service of the notice, defendant No.4 remained unrepresented.

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Learned counsel for plaintiffs submits that the

¶72

compensation awarded by the trial Court is on the lower side. He submits that, though, the plaintiffs have not produced any records to prove the income of the deceased, the trial Court ought to have assessed the notional income of the deceased as per the schedule of the income notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He further submits that the trial Court has not added future prospects to the income of the deceased as per the proposition of low laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others¹ . He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Trial Court is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court.

¶73

Per contra, learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 3 submits that the compensation awarded by the trial Court is just and proper, and do not call for any

¶74

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶75

9 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

interference. He submits that the trial Court ought to

¶79

have taken the notional income as per the Minimum Wages Act. The trial Court has committed an error in taking the notional income at Rs.6,000/- p.m. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶80

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶81

The points that would arise for consideration are as follows:

¶82

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the compensation awarded by the trial Court is on the lower side?

¶83

2) What order or decree?

¶84

Reg. Point no.1:

¶85

The Plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.2 examined herself as PW-1. She reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief, and to prove that the incident the occurred due to the negligence on the part of the officials of the defendants No.1 to 4,

¶86

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

produced the documents. Ex.P-1 is the copy of the complaint which discloses that the relative of the deceased Puttappa lodged the complaint against the defendants No.5 and 6. Ex.P-2 is the copy of FIR, which discloses that the police registered a case against the defendants No.5 and 6 in Crime No.117/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. Ex.P-3 is the copy of the postmortem report, which discloses that the deceased Puttappa died due to respiratory and circulatory failure as a result of electrocution. Ex.P-4 is the notice issued by defendant No.2 intimating the plaintiffs that the defendants released a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on behalf of HESCOM towards compensation vide communication dated 17.01.2012. Ex.P-5 is the communication dated 29.03.2012. Ex.P-6 is the application submitted by the plaintiffs to the defendants for the payment compensation

¶89

amount, vide letter dated 05.04.2012. Ex.P-7 is the postal acknowledgement which discloses that the letter was served to the defendants. Ex. P8 is a reply to the letter

¶90

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

dated 17.01.2012, 29.03.2012 and legal notice issue by

¶93

the plaintiffs. Ex.P-9 is the postal receipt, and Exs.P-10 and 11 are the postal acknowledgements, which disclose that the notice as per Ex.P-6 was served on defendants

¶94

No.1 and 2. Ex.P-12 is the survival certificate, which discloses that the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the deceased Puttappa. Ex.P-13 is a certified copy of the charge sheet, which discloses that the police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the defendants No.5 and 6. Ex.P-14 is a certified copy of the inquest panchanama. Exs.P-15 and 16 are the copies of spot and Japt panchanama. Ex.P-17 is a certified copy of the sketch. Ex.P-18 is a photo copy of the photographs. Exs.P-19 and 20 are the photographs taken at the spot of incident. Ex.P-21 is the letter by the Deputy Electric Inspector, Haveri. Ex.P-22 is the PAN card of the deceased

¶95

Puttappa. Exs.P-23 to P-38 are the Electrical Contractors recruitment work orders in the form of awarding Labour Contract Works issued by the office of defendant No.2

¶96

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

under KPTCL. Ex.P-39 is the estimation. Ex.P-40 is a

¶99

photo copy of the license issued to the deceased Puttappa.

¶100

plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW-2 who reiterated the examination-in-chief of PW-1. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to disbelieve the evidence. In rebuttal, the official of the defendantsCorporation was examined as DW-1, deposed that no work orders was issued in favour of the deceased and the license of the deceased as a contractor was expired.

¶101

From the perusal of the records, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the officials of the defendant-corporation as the defendants have not taken proper care and caution before deceased Puttappa started to work on the spot. Thus, the police have filed a charge sheet against the officials of the defendant-Corporation marked as Ex.P-13. Therefore, the plaintiffs have proved that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the defendant-Corporation.

¶102

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

Insofar as the quantum of the compensation is

¶105

concerned, the plaintiffs have not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the trial Court has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. and an amount equal to 50% of the monthly income is considered for the calculation of compensation as per Section 4(1)(a) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The Coordiante Bench of this Court in the case of Rekha w/o. late N. Subramanya vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and others² assessed the income according to the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The trial Court has committed an error in assessing the income as per the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The incident occurred in 2011. The notional income of the deceased has to be assessed at Rs.6,000/- p.m. as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The deceased was aged 45 years old as of the

¶106

2 AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 5653

¶107

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

date of the accident. 25% of the future prospects has to be added to the notional income as per the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). There are 3 dependants; therefore, 1/3^rd is to be deducted the towards the personal expenses of the deceased. As the deceased was aged 45 years old as of the date of the accident, the applicable multiplier to the age group is 14. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is worked out as follows:

¶110

Rs.6,000 + Rs.1,500/-(25% of Rs.6,000/-) = Rs.7,500/-

¶111

Rs.7,500-2,500 (1/3^rd of Rs.7,500/-) = 5,000/-.

¶112

Rs.5,000 x 12 x 14 = 8,40,000/-

¶113

Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,40,000/towards loss of dependency.

¶114

There are three plaintiffs. Each plaintiff is

¶115

entitled to a compensation of Rs.48,000/- as loss of consortium (Rs.48,000 x 3 = Rs.1,44,000/-). In addition

¶116

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

to it, the plaintiffs are entitled to a compensation of Rs.36,000/-(18,000+18,000) under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,20,000/- as against Rs.5,08,320/- and enhanced compensation of

¶119

Rs.5,11,680/-.

¶120

In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

¶121

Reg. Point No. 2:

¶122

Since Point No. 1 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff, in view of the same, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶123

ORDER

¶124

(i) The Appeal is allowed in part.

¶125

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 23.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.358/2018 by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi is hereby modified.

¶126

16 -

¶127

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100341 of 2018

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

(iii) The plaintiffs are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,11,680/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 27.09.2011 till the date of realisation of the amount.

¶130

(iv) The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 27.09.2011 till realisation within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶131

(v) The Office is directed to collect the Court fee from the plaintiffs on the enhanced compensation amount in accordance with law and thereafter draw the decree, accordingly.

¶132

(vi) In view of the disposal of the Appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶133

SD/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶134

NAA

¶135

CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Smt. Neelavva W/O Puttappa Hulagur v. Section Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelavva W/O Puttappa Hulagur v. Section Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pruthviraj S/O. Torasa Miskin, Vs Achutanand S/O. Vaikuntha Rao Anvekar

Smt.Ratnawwa W/O. Late Kallappa Dalawai Vs Parawwa W/O. Late Adiveppa Dalawai

Smt. Radhabai D/O Hemaraji Gouli Vs Chandrabai W/O Parashuram Gouli

Gurappa S/O. Saidappa Ambi Vs Kristappa @ Kristanappa S/O Saidappa Ambi

Chairman and Managing Director Vs Hanumant S/O Chittiray Devadiga

M/S Kariganur Mineral Vs H. Sirajuddin S/O H. Abdullah