Vikas Shavu @ Shivaji Pawar vs The Assistant Executive Engineer ... on 25 January, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court

Vikas Shavu @ Shivaji Pawar vs The Assistant Executive Engineer ... on 25 January, 2010

Bench: N.Kumar, B.V.Nagarathna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JA:\:UAR$5~~2Q};Q%-  ', ' 

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR.JUSTfI;t5E::N.«:V  _ 

AN}?
THE HONBLE MRS.  $.§i
  V'
BETWEEN:    'V   M
VIKAS SHAVE   " 

AGED AB€JU"I "-.1_'I"  _ *

REPRE$§:N'T§:-ﬂay i'«/§_}"'3{'P-IP.T_URAL FATHER

SHAW @sAHi1VAJ'1'£3/o._sR1 DHANASING

PAWAR, 1\zIAJO';:~f:;v-_QCC':~.A::;R1CUL'1'URE €001.13

R/0 DE:sHPAr\::)i:L_%jTA:\§1jg'x'.

TQ: 1ND1;'-D1sT:"13IJAPU§a  APPELLANT

.. 4.{('By» sRI.§z'1.:.i;§;Y KUMAR A PATIL, AEVOCATEE

H ;;*::"§%§gA;és:~3.:8ti*;$;';'qT EXECUTEVE ENGENEER

E§ARN§;TAK'.»% POWER
TRA5x;{S'M§ss£QN CQRPORATEON arm

 :N:3L SUB QIVISIGN, ENEDE

 ,g.ii:'::%.?§'§ €XECU'£'§VE ENQHNEER

KARNATAKA PGVJER TRA§\ESE\§§SS§GN

%   --{iQRPGRA'i'EO1'~E mg. g



Ix)

DIVISIONAL OFFICE
BIJAPUR~586 E01

STHE CE~§_AEfREv1AN
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD
KAVERI BHAVAN    H I  
BANGALQRE-560 0oI   ::a.r;t#:;*si-'2o';tsI.13II2:I~IrI*s  5
(By Sri. R s PATIL, ADVOCATE F011' "RI Ann;   
-0-0-0-iiﬁ   1 V' M V

THIS RFA FILE£>«.._"if/S';V_9iEEI_'R/"€'%?'-C3~XLI R I OF cpc
AGAINST THE JUE)'C':E\2IEi':§§T__._, A,NE:) DEGREE
DT.28.11.2OOES IPASSEB-v.II$I. O.SI»._NO'.v_32}Es.}'2O01 ON THE

FILE 0 FHT,1:1«PRL. §CI\[IL}'JUDC_;'~EV_ (jSR.DN] BIJAPUR,
DISMISSIDEG'-THE _SSU.IT _F'O_R (_3C)_}\/iI3I%,f,N'SATION.

THIS IR1:i,,A'.;g:<jI\.III$I(4;I'III:$I$I'*F{§R"oR1f3I3Rs THIS DAY,
N.  J:§,v_VDE;;'§;I'I?_ER::"E'3D TEE' FOLLOWING:

 a .};}1-3.1%;-.1_:b'ifI'3:'?; appeal against the judgment,

  A01' t§?Ié"'t1"ia1 Court which has dismissed the

g2,II_%{"52$"-'£fI»:§";I}23;iI::£iff soieéy an the g'I"<):.;I'Ié 0:" EimitaI.I0II

a.ﬁ§I*M uphéiﬁiﬁg 31% {Em éssazezs in fzwaur ef Ehe ﬁaintifi'.

}§/



2. For the purpose of Convenience, the parties
are referred {:0 as per they are referred to in the originai
suit.

3. The plaintiff on the date sf £116  

miner aged about seven years. On 30.1.Q, _1Q.9"?5.g:"§@1r;ér1<j

his father was Working in this ficid 
Pawar, the plainiiffwminonbgy 'e'ii,. a§:aout.V 
sustained electric shock  i;1;§u1gies in
Coming in coniact \x2'1"tf1:t_1 -:1   1Ev3'_'.A{(I1V (I1()\7VI}. by
the KPTCL in the laid the TC.

Imme€1,1atei:1y, vtiié-.§5ia§f;tﬁ"f._was taken to the hospit:a.1 of

Dr.Ch0ud1"1_a"1'=1_ zit  The right hand Of the minor

 p1a.1«:§;;ﬁiff~xvas V"ar:'§:p uta:ted. The piamtiff Cantenés that

» ih<3_Vsa3d'«§:_r;;r;;iti_<§11t occurred on accaunt of the negligence

2;t:<;i-V+{%a'reE%::3S;é€»:ss abet}: the maintenancé Gf ihe ésissztrié:

 wiré;~:..  ihe defencéaiitsg. The czrime was registerﬁd in

V'  §:i{i*i._P<§§(:e 8%.:/ﬁi<>n in Qr.E'~EG.235g'9'?. "SE23 pEa.fin€i3;f§ $13.3

égpent abeui Rs.25§QO8/-- EZGWa§éS medical €X§)€§f1S{:3S, He

§



claimed Compensation of Rs.1,80,000/~. A legal Qetiee
eame to be issued on 19.3.1999, which wasg":;.e_'p'}ie_¢
denying the liability. Therefore,  .
cause of action arose on 20. 10. 1v9»9'.7.._ Rx
for recovery of the money. As the .'
pay the Court fee, an'».;:1v:'p-91»_ieet'ien '  for" V
permission to proseexzte age-ah."L_:indigeht After
inquiry, the said perrztiseﬁoh'  

After  of  defendants entered

appea'ran<:fe'.V v"tmE'i.tte11 statement denying

the negligence}C:€gfC1eS3hess'on their part at any time.

T hey coﬁt.eI"1c1et1'_th{1t'.tI3ere is an inordinate delay in

 gi§*i§1;gveempieii'11t.te__&t.he police and that the iegai notice

' §t$S116d_viV§$e  year five menths. They also eentertadeﬁ

  ﬁe barred by 1a1m1'_%;at:ier;. The deetefe

 eeetifieete is vague and earmet. be ta;}«;e':; trite aeeeunt,

 '§E?:e~::efe§e; they eenteeded that 33:: zztataee ef aﬁiiiiéfl azreee



for the plaintiff to file the: Sufi. and therefore, denieci the

claim csf Rs.25,000/~ towaxrds medical exp€r1s€s.
On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court
the following issues and an additional issue:-5:

"1.Whet1'1er plaintiff f;)I'C}V'€S that," V

30.10.1991 at 12.P.Mjff.h¢"fsustamsgﬁi   

burn irljuries due -..__to Iicglfigerlcé 

defendants depaztmuénffa} e1ec:ti1*'i£§ "w--i-1'e'?;:
2.VVhe1;hér'=-- _]:';13,jr'f_tiff_> ' pfeifeé.' * f t»1'1.at, he
sustained 10ss__Qf  iniCQﬁ;%é?.. 

: '3..W"fi}3a§hfer''cgwse 'of action arose to
me thiS'V.s1i:ff'?,_ " V'

 plaintiff is eI1t,i_tie& for the

 Sgﬁlghf. for'?

  «.:>r<i€r' 01" d€Cr'é:3€'?
 g.p13ITIoNAL ISSUE N01:

ERR:-"§":%":*?:.E':€§" éhe éefe33§*;da:':fS §":*2"§"*»,-*<«:*,

§,'h8;'[l ﬁ'}.€ suit is iime 'Bar1:*€d'?"

Z
3% .



6
In order to eubstzmtmte their eiexinl, the plaintiff
examined himself  Pew} and examined the Owner of
the land wh_e're the live electric: wire was lymg ;i.e, Bhimu
Somu Pawar as P.W.2 and also examined Dr.Cho1;_d1'1ari

as P.W-3, who conducted the operation and ar1;'p.i;1f't:e£t--eAd

the hand and treated him for burn injur'ieé:. 
produced 9 deeuments. which are :r.1g1r1<;edfig./IeE>{s_.Ifw1 ti) 2

P9. On behalf of the defendant, en  

was examined as D.W.1.

The iiriai Court. on a.pp'tjee_ié{t.iQn 0'f«t1f1e_;é.f0reeaid

oral end,doei;ime_fi'ts;i'y_eV1C3;e§1ee on record held that the

evideneeT*___0f   3 read together Clearly

estétbhiiehes th'at:tvhe;3iaintiff etistained the bum. injuries

~ l::'1Lz;.=.eV {Q 'negitgencte of de.fer1daI1ts' depa';'tme1:tai eieetrie

'2e§1*e, 3»-,..s;.:~[1;;¢ emptitatéen heiew right aniiie ee2"te.inEy

:veh.E;d.V"'§«e3;d the tees of hte fet.u3:e. irzeemey wétheué, gethg

 EEEEQ the queetieh zﬁzethei" the qt:e1§'z§.%1.::m daémed ﬁe

vhmzaper er met, it pfeeeeded {<3 held that the 5:-gait Ee

9:
3
23?

igyw 



barred by time. Therefore, it dismissed the suit of the
plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said. judgment and  of

the trial Catert, the plaintiff is in appeal.

4' The counsel for the

that the finding recorded lggythe t1=iall'~--Courtvl'thele.ult=,

is barred by time is legal anvelw-§aI.td afid. eloeis  call for

interference.    that
absolutely 1TlOA€ViC3.filV'_1,€1*°.?.:._l§3. 'l':?§3,;*,¥l'l"the plaintiff to
preve  on the part of the
detentlghlts:-.,Vll:-legit:  no case is made out
for ihterf _V  * l'

ullﬂ the aferesaid C01'1'E€I1l.EO3'}S, the

1:§ei3f1t§A'that. Ei.f"iS€,__1fQ}fv our consideration areiw

 l.Alf';l.l'l"'s7Vl}E:lZl{1€I" the fmﬁing ef the trial
~':<i'§C}'Al.;.1§'{. that the aeeidem:/burn injuries
 was eaueed ﬂue te rzegligenee ané
ttareiees; aet er: the part ef the

defendante is *s.nitiat.ed en any eeunt'?



2.'Nhether the suit is barred by time
as held by the 't1'ia1 Comft?

3.\3Vhat order?"

8. POINT No.1:-« The 
The plaintiff on the date of   L'
t0 five years. He \vas a  ﬁe' ~'%x.:g1ig;_}xvith his
father at the time of ?E'7:3f;Ae:.r11edieal evidence
on record,    'v:...nr}i"9#puted, clearly
establishes"'ti'§_a:5"e1ﬁV'e  burn injuries to
his    place on 3OK1O.1Q97.
He we:s. t:9;}_§:'er1V .'D.r.Ch0udhari9 His evidence

discloses 'tLi--:...eV1t"t1*1Vev.'ei'1.%_I'd'~?.7§as brought to his 1'1«:>spif:.a1 with

 .,,'A¥:hee__}:;ie£:e:'}? ef'e1ee'::*ie burns. As the i::j'u:j§; was eaueed

 _ due" es' 'e1ee£1"§e burns, it was affected with gangrene' '§'1'1e

eei:i;g'*iie:2t§0izi:?;3f:: the defe:';.da::'{.e was, the ehiid wag not

 taken" the hespétai immediateiy affier the aeeidem. £3

."_AA§e_,_";é.eea:;ee if {he deézzjg in ggeﬁmg hie": meéigtai

  _VV_§:£"eaE'ment§ the injury resuited. in g2.~u3g;"e§.':e emﬁ because



9

of that, the hand has to be amputated anti therefore,

there is no negligence on the part. of the defenda;1*:tf:;.,_4»'l'~w.v

When Once it is net disputed that th_e';--liVe' 

Wire had fallen on th_e land cf P..'..?'v';2_ ancl   V'

Came in contact; wit.h the said liveitwife, llwhich 

in burn injuries, may be 'e,n"~~._aee0i5;nt'Qf *§.:lli'te1ei*'aey' and"

poverty: the child  nQtl"lle{§e'Vbeen g;iver1 itnrneciiate
attention, that eanneth he   him. Similarly,
not lodging  after the
accident étgaiiisi him. This is a suit
filed:v'htet l"01'«'theVﬂ:injuries sustained. T he
plaintiff; in such a claim has to shew

thet.. the 4"aec'ident,."-wee on account ef negligence er

 _e:5e'Vele'ssﬁees erlivllthe part ef the defendants. When the

 'J'if:fiif3",lC{§Vf th;eV.1aCcident wee a minor aged 5 the 6 yeare, it

is«..€.ee'i'm,§iic:h te expect. that nnner tie peeve hie eeees If

 .. hie {either is lgrierent. ené il§it.eret.e except fer gitréng the

 '"'.~_,l{:%:& they eatmet 'ee e::<:peet,e<;l te give eeicéengte er: the

eensequenee ef negligence anﬂ carelessness ae

5:



understood in law. 'Elven in the absence of arayflireet
evidence, when once the accident is proved, 
established, the Court can leak into the  
evidence. The principle of u

attracted to the facts of this A' Th e

Cempany is expected to n1a§.: i'iain it-'5 .e1er:t.rieV'W'i':'e' and if"

an electric wire has vfse.1z1Ven  ,§§I*9j§1ne1;'€:ert3§n1y, they
shouid have deieectexe1 £;t'  ﬁaken remedial
steps to   not done so;
wlnch   the face of the record-
The    e1ef'e;'1dants to show Why
immeeiiete  taken to restore the eiecitrie

wire. to its 'U:j igina1  At any rate, what steps, have

  taken' to reéfdtee the ﬁne is its <:»rig2i:1a.1 piece. in

  Vi:%§..iS'ee:3.e;' %1i;ée_é9iuteiy, there is me ev§de;1€:e en. behalf 9?

eh-e_ re$pr3e'dAen§.s if": this reggfa-rd. The Eearmeei trial Judge

 hae §"§§§i€i}* appreeiaied the ex-ﬁde':1ee ef ?.W$. L 2 gmd 3

' 'A. ;e::r:iA' hae iaken into <:e:'%:s:iéera:.§e:1 iihe age 0? me mimogz

{he nature of injuries --,e-:~us'i:ai'r;ed§ the treatment. given



and the amputation of his right limb below ankle and
has "rightly come to the Conclusion that the 
on account of "negligence and carelessness  
the defendants, which ﬁndinga...' «<:l0.'r '
interference as it is based on legal  
we affirm the said findin§.  b l T  A l
7', POINT   l"--»c1ls<:.1lé'si0n...l§ in the

judgment on the queS'ei_:Jrll' discloses that
the learned    suit ﬁled falls
within   and therefore,
holdaﬂihaé;  -'by time. Chapte'rAVII of the
Schedallello   Act deals with suits relating

te,.'r}j.:3;1;t..a'~  'lo 91 deal with the same. la as far

»   on which reliance is placed shows that

mllienvva'e§e1§t[i*elafi:1g ta tart Ea filed fer €:GI1'}p€If}.S?J.",i0Z'{1 fer'

§ZlOi..§l§.'.§{'C}E'. fO§' emitting to de an act alleged :0 be in

 p{:'fJfS"L1aI"£{§€ 0? an}? enactment: in foree fer 'iihe 'iéme 'eeizzg

  i:er:'it<:>:*iea ie which tlrnia Act? €X"i€I}CiS, the perieﬂ of

%.



{imitation prescribed is one year when the act or
omission takes place. Neither in the Complaint nor in
the written statement, there is any reference._to_'";1ny
ermctment and the eonsequentia} ob1igatio~;1 '
from such statutory provision, which has  
by the defendants, which is the' oause for'.ae:c'ideot,
The other Articles do not deal iégritiﬁtiie éitxjatioii
are faced in the suit. Therefore, horie of ivtitiejérovijésiozzsj

of the Limitation Act eontameti in Chepiei--*-V"§§ Hé.vpp1ies.VV

In those circumstances, A,r€--.%e1e--. I13 proV'ir:1.ess'§that any

suit,:'i'fo'i*' iiio'-.1§eriod_'""ofV limitation is provided
eisexvvhefe. in  then three years is the

pe:f§o_d fromV_'the','dé.ieV'of cause of action to file the euit

 8.°Ci€Eii.'u5€'LS. 'fE'herefoi'e, taking into €Z'.O1'1SidE31"aEiO1"i£ the date

  "o;::;tifie:'_::;oit is filed; admittedly the same is \:4.rit,hi_:1

'§_'.i:?i_1€, .~'E'hef*eforeg the iearried triai dodge was in ewes' in

 AAappi32?ir.§§.§ Artigtie "F2 tie the faete of this cage in irioidiiog

 "i;'i<*:a~i: the edit ie barred by ﬁfiliiéiiiﬁifi and diemiee tee

.. Same; 



8. POINT NO.3:--~ The piaintiff has claimed a
sum of Rs.2,{)(),OOO/~ as comperasation, but restricted
the claim in Rs.1,60,000/~. Even in the abs.er1ee'e':T$.f»ee1ze1§;
evidence on this aspect, what the Court 
of it is the nature of injuzy, the 
incurred the disability on aeeoﬁ:r'1t,  
of earning Capacity. loss   
suffering, the expenses   tree medical
expenses by way   __conveyance and
attendant chayges,  status of his

pareﬁ1ts._  _i1_'1to all these, the boy was
hardlyﬂf) to ES  limb below elbow is cut
off, It ':e§"~3_"per'm2i;1ei'1'{: disability. Thie ehiid when it

 to Aiivev-.xs.rii;h0ut the hané. 'E'heref0re, r1a,turai1y

' ehise e.a;Ier1'i:f;§§ .._eap.21e£":y fer aﬁ time '£0 eeme 13 being

'--a;ffe'ei.e{i'."_"--._T1$1e evidenee an reeeré ehewe that they have

 AA in§u'fj;_['avhi:th teeeuiied in gsmgrezieg {he hand, has ie 'be

s};ae1'1:___v'E"«:s§',.i'2§,08®f-, The few': {that an aeeeunt sf ihe

is



Cut off is not disputed. Therefore, the eiaim of

R-325,000/~ towards medica} expenses 

reasenable. We have taken into e0nsiderat4it>n,A"th'eless 

of income on account of the diS3;bilit.y.   a_tu 

any rate. will net be less than  

The inconvenience will contigme tovbe the1*.e 'thi'0ughout" V

his life. it may aiso e.()'nse;;t1enh:t'iy ﬁt'he.e{1Eu£4eationa1
prospects and  in those
eircumstangiesgthe -, in our view.
is on      »-what is eiaimed is
  it'._wpf:§fper to accept: the Claim
and   which is payable with

int,e;r:est eit 6% -.::0fjf1 tide date of the s:-suit tﬂl the date of

t  * e  ..hattv&eii1d meet the ends of justice.

-:_ Véienee, we pass; the ietioaviztzgm
ORDER
{a}T%:e apgezti aiimxyede (13) The judgment and decree of the trial Court; is hereby set aside. The sui3f.v'~._:
is decreed with cost. (:2) The defendants ' of Rs.i,ES0,000/-- as cc$=:§r1peras5}:xt'i':>.r.'1-..'fOr" *~ the injuries sustained with"it1tere.s'€..a:t ' 6% from the date S date cf paymergi.
V' eeeeme sex;
Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Vikas Shavu @ Shivaji Pawar vs The Assistant Executive Engineer ... on 25 January, 2010

Bench: N.Kumar, B.V.Nagarathna
