Ramappa vs The Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn ... on 12 January, 2010

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ramappa vs The Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn ... on 12 January, 2010

Bench: V.Jagannathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 
CIRCUIT EENCH AT DHARWAD E

DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUAR?S?.,"i2E{7,jEO.  _

BEFORE

THE I--ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE;';\'}.  

R.F.A.NO.233/E006.

BETWEEN:

1. RAMAPPA   -- 
S/O SHIDDAPPA DI.NNIMANI- .   *
AGE:42 YEARS,  
OCC:NIL, I  I
R/O NACANU'R___  A    
TQ:GOKAK,    f " 
DIST:BELGAU=M--;;--_V ' 'I   *

2. KUMA.R_C'HETI'INKUMAR 
S/O RAMAPPA DINNIMANI P
AGE ABOUT YEARS - '
OCC;STUDENT,  .  " 
MINOR RE3PTD._ BY HIS;~NE:><:T
FRIEND M/GIFATH-ER'?
.A;PPEL.LAT N'O.I,_ _____   APPELLANTS

A  _A.NeC1Opant, Adv.)

  AND

   THE 'KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

---  .. ,COR"PN. LTD., A BODY CORPORATE
 , CONSTITUTED U/SEC.5 OF THE
 'ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1948,
; REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER,
< THE SECRETARY, KPTCL AT CAUVERY
EHAVAN, STATE BANK OF MYSORE



CIRCLE, BANGALORE.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [ELECL)
KPTCL O 85 M SUB--DlVN.,
GHATAPRABHA, TQ:GOKAK,
DIST;BELGAUM.

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEE-R -:' --. "
(ELECL). KPTCL    '
0 85 M SUB--DN., GHATAPRABI-I13... 
TQ:GOKAK, D1ST:BELGAUM.._V '

4. THE SECTION OFFICER, 
KPTCL,MUDALAGV!;~..V_  -   "
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BE_L'G_AUM;,;»' 3 .x.'=RESPONDENTS

{By Sri.}3.RudragoWda, Adv; 'fo1f'R1'*tyQ_4, «V V' "

Smt.Pushpafzathiwi.D:hongadi;«.A'dﬁf'f0r__E32 and R3) This appealélis i"11'ed. 1.i1«:;:1.le:~ S.eeti'Qn"96 of CPC filed against the judgrnentq arltl; decree" 'c'.a_ted,3' 10.11.2005 passed in O.S.N0.114i/2'OO2 0n"i*Ithe ifilyeﬁraf the""Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gokak, d'i.Srn_issing'.th_e'"suit».fe'r.. recovery of money as damages. Thisiiapipealic0tf1ingu£3n"'t't)r hearing, this day, the court delivered the f'ellowing_: ' ' "

EJUDGMENT it were the plaintiffs before the trial court E and the s_:1it.Vi'fi'led by them claiming compensation from the "«KPTACyL fdllniiving the death of the wife of the 15' appellant due to E el'e--ctrir:_:iAshock received by her when she went to the land to Ea"

'$34 start the electric motor, came to be dismissed by the trial court. Hence, this appeal by them.

2. The plaintiffs' case before the trial courti"-.vvaSi'i"thati' if 08.01.2000 deceased Shantavva wifeiiofiithe Hist mother of the 2nd appellant Went to land in .N_aga'nuri of Gokak taluk in order to startijfie ptini-psetoa;ncig\vhen she tried to start the rnotorr' starter bntton she received high voltage the spot. After ﬁling complaint before registered in UD CR 1/ 2000 l\/Iortem having been conducted. being affirmed due to electroc1iition,'i "0 filed the suit claiming compensationfromlthe 're'sp.:o'ndents KPTCL authorities. ..'l,..i:ear1a.edzdudgeiiiiofiithe trial court after considering the "p_1__a'i'nt' and the respondents having been not filed anv .__vvritteniﬁstaternent framed the following points for . corisideratiion:

, Whether the plaintiffs have establish that the negligent act of the KPTCL authorities is the £;'*>-

V sole cause for the electric accident alleged this suit and due to the said accident'"tl'iC«i_g."*.lA deceased Shantawwa wife of the i"

died on the spot? i ll

2. If so, whether the plaintiffs 'i compensation? V i ii i ll

3. What order or decree?iii"r;:

4. After appreciating the trial court negatived the first.:t:wQ the suit of the appellants was reason for the trial court to have ans--xnr¢lferil iistines the negative was that the plaintiffslihadlfaiiedlfto::e»sta'fl.ll\Sl'i negligence on the part of the KPTCL autho_riti,esll V.:_therefore question of awarding Compensation tol.iti:e_pl_aintiffs will not arise. The dismissal of i*._the:suit ther.efore.has given rise to this appeal of the plaintiffs.

5. l' lhave. learned counsel for the parties and perused . the record of this case.

'._ll"Sri.Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for the ':l_4lapp'ellants contended that though the appellants have lead %» ?

evidence by examining PWs 1 and 2 and on beha1f_,_of the respondent~K.P'f'CL, no written statement was filed and when the respondents did not even cross__-e-ixaxninhe' the plaintiffs' witnesses, the evidence of the plaintiffs" if sufﬁcient to draw the inference that it;"'w'a's dLie'~ to voltage current and the flucti-'ration the the!' deceased received shock when she'x.2ven.t_to starter and as such the piaintif"fs..l:'had.l: negligence on the part of the KPTCL authoriAtie.s.._ even DW~1 has admitted in crossl¥ei<'a'rriination that if the transformers then it would cause variationzvjlinlllsnpplyn In the face of the said evidence of evidence having been seriously cha1len,§ed,.?the- trial court therefore was in error in llignorinlé' the evidencie"""on record and as such findings of the t:_ial' courlt-._oir:"isstres I and 2 are not only perverse but is contrary to_ thdadmissible evidence on record and as such the lundgrrientvof the trial court be set aside and the suit of the be decreed as prayed for.

E:

7. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of the above submission placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of M.P.ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. SHAIL KUMAR___ AND OTHERS (AIR 2002 so 551), ~ THIRUNAVAKKARASU AND OTHERS vs. ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANoTHER.qAI12{ .i§$4'1,rgrAD'_2ot-1);V' ' and in RFA No.975/2001 disposed 17.02.2009, apart from re1yinlgr.o'n.nRule""3Q and-Ru_le"~9..1'ofthe' Indian Electricity Rules, K1956.

8. On the other N. Dhongadi, learned counsel . for, the resipohdent'«{K_P'l'C£,"authorities argued that the»./Aﬁn*dlings '-t.he»l.tria_llcourt requires no interference and the plaintiff.s.iiha\lIle. establish that there was any neglgfence on thevpartépof the KPTCL authorities and moreover this is n,ot«.avcase where the deceased came in contact with any live.wi're'iin_"'p.ub.lic place. Therefore, the View taken by the trial D court' cannofbe faulted. In support of the above submission, '--.xlC'é'[i{31"C'd counsel places reliance on the rulings in the cases of .l S..D;oL GRID CORPORATION or ORISSA L'I'D., AND T "OTHERS vs. TIMUDU DRAM (2005 (6) SUPREME 209) and 3,,» mt CHAIRMAN, GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA I/l'D_,_, AND OTHERS vs. SMT.SUKAMANI DAS AND ANOTI-iEﬁ«.._i(A1R 1999 so 3412) and sought for the dismissal of the.

9. In the light of the above iis':;tbrnission_.s<_andi'hthe citations referred to by the learned counisel for tlfiieipai'tiiesg"thep Points that for consideration are."'--»,

i) Whether the in recording negative

ii) tsriiiihe-«suit of the plaintiffs to be in accordance Withi.1_aw?3V. V -.

10. The first .raise'd..:_by the trial court for consideration ...n.referr.ed to earlier--..regtii_res the plaintiffs to establish that i'~.nSha11.tavx;;i1 account of the negligent act on the part of It is not in dispute that Shantavva died V due to""eleetroc'i.1tior1. This is clear from the Post Mortem report is produced and marked in evidence as Ex.jP.1'7. The police' "also have conducted Inquest Panchanama as per .._4'E."x-.*P.l8 and the plaintiffs have also gr;-sed Ex.P.16 to prove E'?

that a case was also registered in UD 1/ 2000 u/ s l74..__of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said document revcalswthpat due to leakage of current in the starter button, on 08.01.2000 at about 01.15 p.m. vvher1_ she'vve'nt'.'toi.th,exlanduit to start the current motor fixed to itéhefvveiil. above admitted facts, the plai.nt~i.ffs have also'ie:lie§rd....f:videnceV.0' examining PW-I and PW--2. the'-ildsipplvaintiff has deposed in his evidenceatziparap4s.'_abou:.n death of his wife due to high voltage her when she Went to the 1an"c:._':pfe' 08.01.2000. He has also was the duty of the KPTCL concerned to keep a check on high voltage!electric_it$;j'~leiipithestarter and also to keep the live wire as -well as the starter good condition and has deposed I-iiitiiat "clue 3-to the negligent act of the KPTCL authorities the piteilnptiii 4ivvifej..died due to the fatal injuries. 0 .11. is"'--ialsofin the evidence of PW-1 at para 2 that he had the motor and the KPTCL authorities had fixed the the motor starters and the fuses have been fixed by

--«i..:the'hKPTCL authorities at thetime of installation. The above %

-.9 evidence of PW--1 has not been discarded because he has not been cross--exarnined by the respondents for reason.s'ii~best known to the respondents.

12. Likewise, PW--2 Basavaraj has...deposedmin' --:_1§i.sil.'evlidericeV'~ corroborating the evidence of PW-1i":anCE"tl"iis lvJ\iti'1elss iiliasialso stated that when Shantavva *vve'nt. to start thei._eieet:tic ilnotor,.]' she received high voltage electric_l_i:shoci<_»from the._Ae1ei:tric board and succumbed to death.iiat_Atl1.e %sploif~;--_'p»v..ri{pii;is'witness was also present when thei.panchaniaif1j,ai by the police and says 'i{l7'I'CL authorities, the accident occurred{l.;__' In theiciéoslsiéiexamination of PW--2 nothing is there, to Q diisbclieve»i.Voialiholld that the testimony of this witnesses iswrruiotreliable orlionvincing. '"~._13. ano'th.e.r.witness and he also speaks similar to I~'Wl--"1~ by deposing to the effect that when Shantavva went"*to stajiftiA'i1'the electric motor, she received high voltage '.electric.. shock from the electric board and died on the spot and it was due to the negligence on behalf of the KPTCL E»-

E! 10 authorities that the incident occurred. This witness is also not cross~exarnined by the KPTCL for reasons best known_to:"i't,

14. Thus, the testimony of the plaintiffs' Witnesses_:'iridicate_¢ that on account of the high voltage'ieleict1'ic died. On behalf of the respondents, afﬁdaviit of '1 was 'filed' and the said witness being the A's.si"st.ant Executiive Engineer of KPTCL while admitting that thei:ic--i.t1t;tt't'th_ttppttiea iii the land of 1st plaintiff says that tlig.i:,i.ff'eisponsibility of the 18* plaintiff that utl.'l~:C:'i in the course of cross~exarninat.io1nL..';3;:h.is-:'yViitn.e_s's_ hasadmitted that it is the duty of s'uppiy electricity to the given companyhancl 'torirnaiiitainnielecitriciwires in the proper condition and it is als'o.__the_ KPTCL to ensure that supply of _iVelectric}%pioWer is ip"rope_r_Aa.nd he further admits that for proper cfvvietlectvric power or to distribute the electricity power they itla1IeiiﬁXieri_ thiei transformers in selected places and goes on i if to sayiithatfit isialso the duty of the KPTCL to maintain the said i°".i'transfo_rmers in good condition and in case the said transforrners do not function properly, it causes Variation in of electricity power.

,E«~ o-4 ii

15. Thus, the above evidence of DW--l also indicates that there is no proper supply of electricity and the transf0ri'ra:e1*s"are not properly maintained which is the duty of said lapse leaves to variation in supply...of_electricitypoweri

16. Thus, a careful reading of the entire eviderice"oh recordiﬁ indicate that death of Shantavvavs.:was on high voltage electricity Supply*'.ir1 thAe"'"stai;tie\r=.andiiirrview of the admission made by DW- ::sa_L'di:--i}ariia_tion would take place if the tI'8'..l'1.'.'.~'-:l:"(:)1*.-Ifl'1€1'$VV' in good and proper have to be drawn is that the vvelectric dish-0sk'iiwhich was received by Shantavvvap was irregular supply of electricity and therefore be at_tributed to the transformers being not 9.4'.

pmainte.«i§nedi'~in gooduoovndition. In turn, it speaks of negligence Wonithe KPTCL authorities in not maintaining proper As such the finding of the court below on V points"? a-nd"2: cannot be sustained as the evidence of the 4i°'i.v.44plaintif__fs' witnesses makes it very clear that the death of i:_S.hantavva was mainly on account of the fluctuation in ':;elec'tricity and on account of the high voltage shock she died. }"

-'cf

17. As far as the rulings referred to by learned counsel for the KPTCL are concerned, they have no application to the facts of the present case and moreover in the instant case, the respondents have not even ﬁled any written staternen't.:.in_V.'the sense when the trial court rejected the written state--menti:'Whi'c'hi ' was filed belatedly the respondents did. not tih'er'_:0rd'f';}"hi of the trial court before any higher;":forun1.'ii Apa'rt:i'fro1r1'--.thivs:, both PWS l and 3 were not crosis--"e§tamined by thei res~p.QI"dents'V.i' thereby the evidence of said tvvoWv_vitnesses'~«haveviiremained unshaken.

18. For the above reas:o'ns;--t:hei 'cvid_enCeappreciation by the trial court is_n'ot_-tiny 7consona_nce_' with the evidence on record and the ﬁndings recoridedi"b_y'"the trial court on points 1 and 2 cannot. be sustained effort-the very same reasons and hence the two i'poin=t"s raised for consideration are answered in the negative. _ " V

19. A «in the idfeciisions referred to by the appellants' counsel it beenﬁ' held by the Apex Court in the case of pi.IVl.,P;.El}ECTRICITY BOARD vs. SI-IAIL KUMAR AND OTHERS 2002 SC 551) that the defence of electrocution due to i'\

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court