Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs State Commissioner on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46327
WP No. 10713 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10713 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHAMUNDESWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
KUVEMPU NAGAR
MYSORE - 570 023.
2. THE DIRECTOR (A AND HR)
K.P.T.C.L
KAVERI BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE SUPERITENDENT ENGINEER
CHAMUNDESWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
Digitally signed by
ARUNKUMAR M S KUVEMPU NAGAR
Location: HIGH MYSORE - 570 023.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CHAMUNDESWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
KUVEMPU NAGAR
MYSORE - 570 023.
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CHAMUNDESWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46327
WP No. 10713 of 2020
HC-KAR
YALANDUR TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 441
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K.B, ADVOCATE FOR P1, P3, P4 AND P5;
SRI. SHANMUKHA G.C, ADVOCATE FOR P2)
AND:
1. STATE COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE STATE COMMISSION
FOR THE PERSONS WITH THE DISABILITIES
NO.55, 2ND FLOOR, ABBAIAH COMPLEX
KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD
BUILDING, SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 020.
2. CHIKKASWAMY
S/O MUTTUSHETTY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O YARIYURU VILLAGE
YALANDURU TQ - 571 441
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. LAXMINARAYAN N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 151 R/W ORDER XLI
RULE 19 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR CONNECTED RECORDS
RELATING TO ANNEUXRE-K, DATED 05.06.2020 PASSED IN
CASE NO.22/2018-19 ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46327
WP No. 10713 of 2020
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 06.05.2020 (Annexure - K) passed by respondent No.1.
2. The facts in the nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that; the petitioner is a body corporated under Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, regulating the power supply and distribution in the State of Karnataka. It is further stated that respondent No.2 has filed a petition before respondent No.1 seeking compensation on the ground that his son Vikas studying in 7th standard has met with an unfortunate accident on 13.04.2017, wherein the son of respondent No.2 while playing with the other children had a stick in his hand, which touched the electricity cable which passes through the roof and on account of the same, son of respondent No.2 was injured and thereafter shifted to the District Hospital Chamarajanagara for treatment and as such, son -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46327 WP No. 10713 of 2020 HC-KAR of respondent No.2 sustained injuries to the right hand and became handicap. Hence respondent No.2 has approached respondent No.1 - Commission seeking compensation in Dispute No.22/2018-19. Respondent No.1 by order dated 06.05.2020 directed the petitioner herein to pay compensation of Rs.36,00,000/- with interest at 8% per annum to respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has presented this writ petition.
3. Heard Sri.Lakshmikanth K.B, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 to 5, Sri.Shanmukha G.C, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.2, Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Laxminarayan N Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4. Sri.Shanmukha G.C, learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.2 contended that respondent No.1 - -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46327 WP No. 10713 of 2020 HC-KAR Commission has no jurisdiction to award compensation under the provision of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and in this regard learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Ors. Vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin reported in (2010) 4 SCC 368 and argued that respondent No.1 - Commission has no jurisdiction to award compensation, accordingly sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure - K.
6. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the question to be answered in this writ petition is, as to whether the State Commission made under the relevant Act is empowered to award compensation to the persons who sustained injuries on account of the accidental death or -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46327 WP No. 10713 of 2020 HC-KAR injury? In this regard, it is relevant to extract Sections 80 to 82 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which reads as under;
80. Functions of State Commissioner.--The State Commissioner shall--
(a) identify, suo motu or otherwise, provision of any law or policy, programme and procedures, which are in consistent with this Act, and recommend necessary corrective steps;
(b) inquire, suo motu or otherwise deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and safeguards available to them in respect of matters for which the State Government is the appropriate Government and take up the matter with appropriate authorities for corrective action;
(c) review the safeguards provided by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force for the protection of rights of persons with disabilities and recommend measures for their effective implementation;
(d) review the factors that inhibit the enjoyment of rights of persons with disabilities and recommend appropriate remedial measures;
(e) undertake and promote research in the field of the rights of persons with disabilities;-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:46327 WP No. 10713 of 2020 HC-KAR
(f) promote awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities and the safeguards available for their protection;
(g) monitor implementation of the provisions of this Act and schemes, programmes meant for persons with disabilities;
(h) monitor utilisation of funds disbursed by the State Government for the benefits of persons with disabilities; and
(i) perform such other functions as the State Government may assign.
81. Action by appropriate authorities on recommendation of State Commissioner.-- Whenever the State Commissioner makes a recommendation to an authority in pursuance of clause (b) of section 80, that authority shall take necessary action on it, and inform the State Commissioner of the action taken within three months from the date of receipt of the recommendation:
Provided that where an authority does not accept a recommendation, it shall convey reasons for non- acceptance to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities within the period of three months, and shall also inform the aggrieved person.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:46327 WP No. 10713 of 2020 HC-KAR
82. Powers of State Commissioner.--(1) The State Commissioner shall, for the purpose of discharging their functions under this Act, have the same powers of a civil court as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any documents;
(c) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;
(d) receiving evidence on affidavits; and
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents.
(2) Every proceeding before the State Commissioner shall be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the State Commissioners shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
7. Having taken note of the language employed in the aforementioned provisions and the judgment of the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:46327 WP No. 10713 of 2020 HC-KAR Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinesh Kumar Bhasin (supra), I am of the view that, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to grant compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the State Commission is only a regulatory body to recommend the Government for appropriate action to be taken in the domain of its functions. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for appearing for the petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 06.05.2020 (Annexure - K) passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside.
(iii) It is made clear that it is open for the respondent No.2 to avail such remedy under law for seeking compensation in respect of the untoward incident, if any, in the circumstances of the case.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36