Smt Bhagyabai vs Principal Secretary on 6 July, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Bhagyabai vs Principal Secretary on 6 July, 2010

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

IN1TH3HKHiCOURTCH?KARNATAKA.BANGALORE;

DATED THIS ON THE 6"?" DAY OE JULY 29107  

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE EAM:v1D«EAN_;RED_D{p..i'.V 

WRIT PETITION NO. 90%6e;"Q'Qi>§:1'/b ©ET'20A10.. .,  

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. EHAGYAEA1 _ % _
W/O LATE 'i'HI'1\/EMA NAEK' 
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS"  V

2. KAV1THAT.{'   2. A 
D /0. LATE "{'HI1'--..'{-MA" NjA._1K.,_
AGED AEDUT_f'.17 Y'E;ARsi;- «  

3. HAF,iSHVNAiiii T. _  .
D/o;._LATENA_1'E.. ' -
AGED ABOUT _1 6 ._YEAR_s»» . 

4. RAXZINAIK    V
Dgo LATE T}-HMMA NAEK

 "  .. AGEDABQUT 1'3'*TEARs

A  VEET*1:*T1DN'EJe§s--..2, 3 AND 4 BEING MINOR ARE
. 'E2EpT<Es.ENTED BY THE1R MOTHER AND NEXT~FRIEND

TjET1T_1'QNi:R No.1

 LAE.sE;M1EA1
---  .. MOTHER OF' LATE THIMMA NAIK
" _ AGED 66 YEARS



 "  _ {BY:I.éR.I,;'-SEIAGADEISSH' MUNDARG1, AGA. ,3

F0

ALL RESIDING AT VILLAGE KENGALLU 5621 1 l._ 
SOMPURA I-IOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK. BANGALORE
RURAL DISTRICT.  "

(BY SR1: CLIFTON DROEARIO, AIi)V..]
AND:   

I. PRINECIPAI, SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OE ENERGY
VIKASA SOUDHA  
BANGALORE.

2. BESCOM,   - 
REPRESENTED BY MA"NAC_}I1\§G. D~I.REC~T_OR
KRCIRCLE,    
BANOALOREEEO o0__I.._.._ _  '

3. CHIEF ENGI {E}    " 
BANGAIIOREI EEECTRVI.CIT_Y 'CO'MP_1-';l\IY (BESCOM)
K.R.C1R::*,Li:?_';»'_ " '   .  

BANCA.EOR_E ::,_.  ~

4. EXECUTIVE'ENOIREERT-E) '
BANGALORE ELE'CTR..{C"I'FY COMPANY (BESCOM)
NELAMA_NG,ALA_ D'fVISIi_3N
BANGALOR_E.=.F * 
1 I '  RESPONDENTS

  * T_   PETITIONBIS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
"E; '22? OECONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN

ARRROPRIATE' WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE
RES'PONDE3I'\ITS DIRECTINC THEM TO PAY

 COMPENSATION OF RS. 10,00,000/~ (RUPEES TEN LAKHS
  CONIIY) ALONG WITH INTEREST THEREON AND ETC..

T  I   PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELILMINARY

'  HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

LS4

. .. RETITI 



ORDER

The bread winner of the petitionersf'faintlyll 0' name Thimnia Naik. allegedly di;":ld"Voi1.t1"i..e August 2008 of electrocution due'.__to'._the the respondents -

Company. Accordingzjigmt themplevtitiolriers,Al the 'deceased Thimma Naik, aged of death was eking out agricultural labour and 8 pm. on 31.31 Augusta' 15' September 2008, when with the allegedly, illegally elect_rif1'ed fenceierectvécd in the field of one Sathya Goel land iiiegligence of the respondents in not taking 'preventing such illegality. The father of

--V tahe'.4'dec'ease"d is said to have lodged a complaint with the lH.,Dobhaspet police station against Sathya Prakash. lhiialrnasingh. Mahendra and Thimmarayappa alleging M the cornrnission of offence under Sections 304, 379 R/w Sec.34 IPC and Sec. 137 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The post mortem report. it is said. concluded t,heic.au_se of death as respiratory failure due to e1ectror:3ut.li'oriV;' . Deputy Electrical Inspector inp_t_he _--rep'o:rt:.ll'dt,HV313i December 2008 stated that:

electrocution on coming iI'ill_c'ontact'v~vy1th_ electrified fence. bythe ow_n:ers"~.,of The petitioners' repeated andpersonal visits to the res ondents forl'""aVfn'ierit;»._oi' Vcorri ensation was taken:'light.l3z.}and::f:'henlc'el;'conilpelled to seek legal advise and issue' their counsel on Ilm March 2009. _Vwhi0c'h too' not responsive. Having sought .---.,.,_,ir1fo;rina'tioni_under'"Right. to Information Act. 2005, the

- by cornrnunication dt. Ill" August 2000 that the deceased died of electrocution to illegal electrification of the fence by the owners of land and that criminal action had been initiated ...aeg:§21inst them and directed the petitioners to approach lﬁi the fourth respondemit W Executive Engineer, i\§e}amanga.1a Division for further information. .j""*-«Tine Executive Elngineer, Neiamangala Division by...1;e_tter"V;dt'.._ 9.9.2009 informed the first petitioner that'_the.

was not responsible for the 3 compensation can be paid,_ }*'oIl'ouring.viivmrifiich petitioners filed WP. No.32'v8iy4.ti'_2OiO fVo1'.':corjr1pe§r1sation, whence this Court or<-iierireserved iiberty to the __petition_e:'rsc appropriate representati_oir1 of BESCOM re1ating"to"t1fiE2 c1a_irn"and a direction to the said respondent"t'o_c'onsi.d..er the same in accordance withpplaw. 9499111 V_:corn9p}i'anice with the order of this Court. '3"~..t1f1ef:r._§et;.i'tioners an application dt. 17.5.2010 for r._co1ja.pen:s-atior1,v'_1'whici"1 was rejected by communication dt; Annexure 'P'. Hence these Writ Petitions {a} Directing payment of compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs along with interest (bl Direct the respondents to provid.e__'tt1le' petitioner with a job compassionate grounds. _ 4'

2. Learned counsellvlvltox" the 2 while advancing the cont:eii.tioI.iAh aipplicabiility of the doctrine of strict 1iabilci_ty'_on M BESCOM, the respond3ent:s»t'cani1ot_llldeclineltompay compensation for thel' tilnti.l:.iv:e]3/liiitﬁiea Naik of electrocution due tothe fence'vnﬁeilng_::i'll.egal1y charged with electricity, by Sathya""{}:oelf.'- counsel places reliance on judgmenltjs'"vof the Apex Court, which are be referred. Suffice it to state that the do.,trin,e~ liability would apply against BESCOM, providetl Sathya Gocl had admitted that the fence 'ltreeting to protect his land was intact charged with welectrlcity, the cause of death of Thirnma Naik. That §:5<»{ fact yet. to be established before a competent Court of law, it cannot be gain said that the doctrine 'fslwoulci apply Epso facto. entitling the petit:i~o-n'er_si'l.l' compensation.

3. It is no doubt. true4'_t,hatlpers0:"1' ; an activity having hazardous risk _to life is liable to pay compensation for tl2._ef injuries "~--.sufl'ered by another person, irrespective of.vany:'Vi1egligen'Ce tort, "carelessness on the part of basis of such liability is the 'ilioreseeable5'}V 'l'risk_:"inhe_rent. in the Very nature of such activity, heiiCe_,l"t-he-li~abi1ity caste on such person is known lyawas lsi,ri"et liability'. It is elsewhere said from the liability which arise

-..dlu_e lto:T"~neglige;1ce or fault in a manner where the Com:__:epi..~otﬂne;gligence comprehends that the foreseeable

-.e'0uid be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. In otherwords, if the defendant did all that ...which could be done for avoiding the harm, he Cannot iﬁi be held liable for the action as based on any negligence attributable.

4. In the instant case, unless and':'*nnti1:lit 'established in law that the fenceerected-'_4by_lSatl413?a»Gee}, V to protect the boundary of his land._l{trasl'(:harg€d"

electricity, a fact in dispL1t.E;~»../,1'; cannot, that it BESCOM, irrespective of whle"tln1etj' have: avoided the Very harm by taking beliable. In the circumst§aiice;$,<--, reason for the respondent: deny payment of as theorder impugned.

in the "Petitions are dismissed, resewinéilibevrtgrl ﬁetitioner to institute such legal proceedings asl"isv.pei"missible in law before a competent V Cou.ijt"'la'W;lfo.r recovery of con:1pensation/ damages. Sd/-3 lUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court