Karnataka High Court
Hubli Dharwad Municipal ... vs Naveen S/O H Rudrappa on 9 March, 2022
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5796 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NAVEEN S/O H. RUDRAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: RAJAJINAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD 580 008.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD 580 008
3. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
MYADAR ONI, HUBBALLI - 580 020,
DIST: DHARWAD.
4. THE PRINCIPAL
LAMINGTON HIGH SCHOOL, HUBBALLI
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI 580 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. VIDYAVATI KOTTURSHETTAR, AAG FOR R2 &R3;
R4 - SERVED)
-2-
RSA No. 5796 of 2012
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD:06.06.2012 PASSED IN R.A.N0.25/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD:11.09.2009 AND THE DECREE
PASSED IN OS NO.218/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) AT HUBBALLI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
DAMAGES.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging
the judgment in the Regular Appeal No.25/2010 by
which the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal
filed by the appellant herein and upheld the judgment
and decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Hubballi, in O.S.No.218/2004, dated 11.09.2009.
2. O.S.No.218/2004 had been filed by a student of V.S.
Pillay English Medium School, who participated in a
Sports Meet, wherein he was injured by a hammer
throw, which came in reverse while he was standing
behind the person throwing the hammer, resulting in
several injuries to him. He filed O.S.No.218/2004
claiming compensation and a compensation of
RSA No. 5796 of 2012
Rs.4,24,933/- along with 9% interest was awarded.
The appellant having challenged the same, first
Appellate Court had directed the defendants to jointly
and severally make payment of the compensation
amount.
3. The defendants in the said suit were the appellant
herein i.e., the Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal
Corporation, The Principal of Lamington High School,
Hubballi, who is the 4th respondent herein, the State of
Karnataka represented by the Deputy Commissioner,
Dharwad, who is the 2nd respondent herein and the
Block Education Officer, Myadar Oni, Hubballi, who is
the 3rd respondent herein.
4. The contention of Sri. G. I. Gachchinamath, learned
counsel for the appellant in the present appeal is that,
the Sports Meet was organized at the behest of the
State of Karnataka, since instructions had been given
by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, who is an
Officer of State of Karnataka. The appellant, coming
RSA No. 5796 of 2012
within the administrative jurisdiction of the State of
Karnataka, as also various other Schools, only
implemented the directions of the Deputy Director of
Public Instructions and as such, the appellant could
never have been made liable, let alone jointly or
severally. As regards the claim of the plaintiff in the
said suit, the entire amount ought to have been
directed to be paid by the State of Karnataka and there
is no reason why the appellant has been directed to
make payment of any amount whatsoever under the
said decree.
5. The learned Addl. Advocate General, who appears for
respondents No.2 and 3 submits that, though the
Sports Meet was held as per the instructions of the
Deputy Director of Public Instructions, the logistics and
organization of the said Sports Meet was handled by
the appellant and therefore, the appellant has also
been made jointly and severally liable. The appellant
cannot try and escape its liability.
RSA No. 5796 of 2012
6. On enquiry with the learned Addl. Advocate General,
she submits that the State has not filed any appeal
challenging the decree passed by the trial Court or the
order in the first appeal. Learned AAG submits that she
will remit the share of the Government in terms of the
array of parties before the trial Court.
7. Sri. Prashant S. Hosamani, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.1/ plaintiff in the suit submits that
he has nothing more to say, since he had already
withdrawn the amount deposited and the dispute is
only between the appellant and the State authorities.
8. Heard Sri. G. I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the
appellant, Smt. Vidyavathi Kotturshettar, learned Addl.
Advocate General for respondents No.2 and 3 and Sri.
Prashant S. Hosamani, learned counsel for respondent
No.1. Though respondent No.4 has been served, there
is no representation for respondent No.4.
9. On the basis of the submissions, which have been
made, it is clear that there is no substantial question of
RSA No. 5796 of 2012
law which arises for consideration of this Court. All the
submissions which have been made are relating to the
facts which cannot be adjudicated in the Regular
Second Appeal. This Court while considering the
Regular Second Appeal cannot dwell into the facts and
re-appreciate the evidence which has already been
appreciated twice by the trial Court dealing with suit
and thereafter by the first Appellate Court.
10. Be that as it may, from a perusal of Ex.D3, it is clear
that the host for the Sports Meet were
HDMC/Lamington Boys/Girls High School, Hubballi and
the meet was presided over by the Principal of the
Lamington Boys and Girls High School, which school is
run by the appellant HDMC.
11. In such a situation, I am unable to accept the
submission by Sri. G. I. Gachchinamath, that the
appellant did not have any role to play in holding of the
Sports Meet. Though the Sports Meet was held at the
instruction of the Deputy Director, Public Instructions,
RSA No. 5796 of 2012
the host would always remain the appellant-HDMC and
the school, which comes within its administrative
purview.
12. Therefore, even on facts, I am unable to accept the
contention of Sri. G. I. Gachchinamath that there
cannot be joint and several liability imposed on the
appellant.
13. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
14. Consequently, I.A.1/2012 also stands discharged.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
