Karnataka High Court
D. Chandrashekar vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, ... on 5 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2002)ACC307, 2002ACJ2014, AIR2002KANT205, 2002(2)KARLJ525, AIR 2002 KARNATAKA 205, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1053, (2002) 2 KANT LJ 525, (2002) 2 ACC 307, (2002) 3 ACJ 2014
ORDER Chandrashekaraiah, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- in respect of the injuries suffered by the petitioner's son Jayanth due to electrocution which occurred on 2-12-2000.
2. The facts in this case are, the petitioners son by name Jayanth who is studying in the 5th Standard at Mohana Education Society, Bangalore, went to his friend's house on 2-12-2000 and while he and his friend were playing on the terrace of the building, he came in contact with a high tension wire, thereby got electrocuted. Consequent on this, the boy has suffered very serious injuries on different parts of the body. The injuries suffered by the boy are, the damage to the abdomen valve resulting in leaving a hole in the stomach and amputation of both the arms. It is further stated that the skin grafting has been done on the stomach by removing the skin from the thigh. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has produced the photographs which show the location of the building and electric wire and injuries suffered by the body.
3. The respondents today, have filed the statement of objections stating that the writ petition is not maintainable since the compensation if any is to be quantified on the basis of a trial in a regularly constituted suit. The respondents in support of their contention placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 33223 of 2001, DD: 3-9-2001. It is submitted that the said order was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 5886 of 2001, DD: 29-10-2001. No doubt in the said decision, this Court has taken the view that if at all if there is any remedy to claim compensation on the basis of the tortious act, it is only in the suit (original side). I am also in full agreement with the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. But after taking into consideration, the facts of this case and the age of the boy and the injuries suffered by him, it is a fit case to award some amount as compensation tentatively. Along with the statement of objections the respondents have also produced a sketch which shows the spot where the petitioner's son was electrocuted. The edge of the area which is marked with the red pencil is very near to the electric wire where one can easily come in contact with the same.
4. No doubt in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it may not be possible for this Court to quantify the compensation even assuming that the negligence if any on the part of the respondent is proved. But, at the same time, it cannot be said that this Court cannot grant some compensation if it is satisfied prima facie the injury has been caused on account of negligence of the other party.
5. The petitioner in the writ petition has stated that the building was constructed much prior to the drawing of the wire in front of the house. If that is so, while drawing the wire, the Department must take all precautionary measures to avoid any possible injury to any person. If this duty owed by the respondent to the general public has not been performed then it amounts to negligence. Therefore, prima facie, I am satisfied that if the respondents had taken proper care, in all probability this accident would not have happened.
6. As stated earlier, this Court is not in a position to assess what is the proper compensation payable to the petitioner in a writ petition without there being any evidence. Therefore, I feel it is just and necessary to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs tentatively as compensation keeping in view the injuries suffered by the boy; age of the boy and his future prospects, to the petitioner's son. This compensation is subject to the decision that may be rendered in a Civil Court in the event, if the petitioner files a civil suit for compensation. Since the injured is a minor, it is just and necessary to direct the petitioner to deposit the said sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in any Nationalised Bank till the boy attains majority and whatever the interest that may accrue be drawn by the petitioner in order to meet the educational expenses if any of his son. Hence, the following order:
Writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:
(a) The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioner as compensation. This compensation is subject to any decision of the Civil Court in the event if the petitioner approaches the Civil Court for compensation.
(b) The respondents are given three months time to pay the said compensation to the petitioner.
(c) The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of compensation in the name of his son till he attains majority. How-
ever, the petitioner is permitted to draw the interest if any accrued for the educational expenses if any of his son.