Karnataka High Court
Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company vs Mariyamma W/O. Late Hanumanthappa ... on 2 June, 2014
Equivalent citations: 2014 (3) AKR 526
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
RSA NO.6145 OF 2010 (DAMAGES)
BETWEEN
1. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
GULBARGA,
R/O: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583 203.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO., LTD.,
R/O: KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL-583203.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ANOOP G.DESHPANDE, ADV.)
AND
1. MARIYAMMA W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA BIDNAL,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583 203.
2. SHRI. SANGAMESH KALHAL S/O. MADIVALAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O: MADIKESHWARA,
NOW AT B.T.PATIL NAGAR,
KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL-583203.
... RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI ANIL ASSOCIATES & JAYAWANT SARAGAON, ADV FOR
R2, NOTICE TO R1-SD.)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2010 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.28/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT-I, KOPPAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL,
FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2007 AND THE
DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.3/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) AT KOPPAL PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT
FILED FOR COMPENSATION TOWARDS DAMAGES.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 of an original suit bearing O.S.No.3/2005 which was pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Koppal, are before this Court challenging the judgment and decree insofar as it relates to mulcting of 75% of liability in regard to the death of the husband of plaintiff-respondent Mariyamma due to electrocution. The suit filed seeking compensation towards damages arising out of the death of plaintiff's husband-Hanumanthappa due to electrocution has been decreed in part assessing the liability of the appellants 1 and 2 at 75% and the liability of the 3 deceased victim at 25%. Suit came to be decreed on 28.11.2007. Appeal filed under Section 96 in R.A.No.28/2008 by defendants 1 and 2 has been dismissed on 15.09.2010. Concurrent findings are called in question by filing an appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
2. Hanumanthappa was the husband of first respondent Mariyamma. He had been engaged by the third defendant Dr.Sangamesh Kalhal, in connection with the construction of one of his buildings. While he was engaged in the construction activities of the house of Dr.Sangamesh, he died due to electrocution. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 had not taken proper care and caution in regard to the maintenance of live wire above the building and that the deceased Hanumanthappa, came in contact with the live wire and got electrocuted and ultimately he died. Plaintiff had filed a suit not only against the appellants who are responsible for maintaining the electric live wire but also the 4 owner of the house who had engaged Hanumanthappa, in constructing the house.
3. Defendants 1 and 2 had specifically denied all the material averments and had called upon the plaintiff to prove the contents of the plaint and the basis for claiming Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. According to defendants 1 and 2 Dr.Sangamesh Kalal, had not taken any permission to put up construction and that he was responsible for the death of Hanumanthappa, due to electrocution and that the electric wire line had been properly maintained by them. According to third defendant, defendants 1 and 2 had failed to perform their duty of removal of live wire passing upon his plot and instead of that they had only put up a plastic cover to the live wire and directed him to continue the work. Hence he had denied any liability.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings following issues came to be framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that her husband Hanumanthappa died while in construction 5 work of the house of the defendant No.3 by coming in contact with live electricity line?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 to 3 are negligent by not taking necessary precautionary steps about 11 KV live line?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for special damages from the defendant No.1 to 3 of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest and costs?
4. Whether defendant No.3 proves that the defendant No.1 & 2 have not taken safety measures and the suit is liable to be dismissed against him?
5. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the defendant No.3 taken license to the construction of his house by giving false facts about the distance of power lines and the defendant No.1 & 2 are not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff?6
6. Whether the defendants prove that the husband of the plaintiff was negligent and met with his death due to his own negligence?
7. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party?
8. What reliefs the parties are entitled?
5. Plaintiff is examined as PW1 and one Gavisiddappa is examined as PW2 and in all three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defendants inclusive of third defendant Dr.Sangamesh Kalahal as DW2. Six exhibits have been got marked on behalf of the plaintiff and four exhibits have been got marked on behalf of the defendants. Ultimately suit is decreed awarding damages of Rs.1,95,000/- against defendants 1 and 2 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till realisation. Suit against defendant No.3 is dismissed.
6. Appeal filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the plaintiff and third defendant in R.A.No.28/2008 has been 7 dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court-1 at Koppal on 15.09.2010.
7. Perused the judgments of both the Courts and heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.
8. On assessing the entire evidence, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that defendants 1 and 2 were expected to take maximum care in the maintenance of live wire above the buildings sought to be put up by the third defendant. Whether the defendant No.3 had obtained proper permission to put up a house from the competent authorities is not decisive in the present case. Whether defendants 1 and 2, being the statutory authorities, had taken all care and caution in the maintenance of the live wire is the decisive point.
9. The trial Court has specifically held that the victim was, to a little extent responsible by coming into contact with the live wire. It is not as though the defendants 1 and 2 were 8 unaware of the building put up by the third defendant. Necessary steps should have been taken to insulate high tension wire passing above the construction which was put up by the third defendant. The principle of strict liability is to be applied in a case like this, more particularly, when high risk is involved. The principle enunciated in Rylands Vs. Fletcher has been applied by the trial Court and that cannot be found fault with.
10. This High Court has held in a case reported in 2007(1) KCCR at page 645 that once the death due to electrocution is attributed to the functioning of the Electricity Board, the principles of strict liability is attracted and the Board is liable to compensate the representatives of the deceased. In fact, there was no necessity for the trial Court to have taken into consideration the contributory negligence of the victim. In fact in a case like this, the contributory negligence does not arise as the authorities engaged in transmission of electricity are expected to take maximum care 9 in the maintenance of electric wire. Suffice to state that the trial Court has mulcted the maximum responsibility on defendants 1 and 2 who are entrusted with the maintenance of high tension electric wire. The negligence of defendants 1 and 2 has been assessed by the trial Court on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Keeping in mind the principle of strict liability as held in Rylands Vs. Fletcher, the trial Court has held that non-obtaining of any permission from the competent authorities by the third defendant to put up a construction would not absolve the responsibility of defendants 1 and 2. It is in this regard issue No.5 has been answered in the negative. After deducting contributory negligence of 25% of the victim, the trial Court has assessed the compensation at Rs.1.95 lakhs with interest at 6% p.a. thereon from the date of suit. Taking into consideration the loss of dependency and loss of consortium, amount so awarded by the trial Court cannot be considered either excessive or exorbitant. On the other hand, the 10 compensation so awarded is quite reasonable and well within the limits.
11. The First Appellate Court, being the final Court of facts, has assessed the entire evidence in right perspective by adopting right approach to the real state of affairs. Both the Courts have properly analysed the evidence and no infirmity or illegality is found in the approach adopted by both the Courts. The questions of law proposed in the appeal memo are not substantial questions of law in its essence under Section 100 of CPC. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law arises before this Court for consideration. Hence appeal is liable to be dismissed as unfit for admission.
ORDER Appeal is dismissed as unfit for admission by upholding the judgments of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
JT/-