Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd vs I.Jagannath (Retired Engineer) on 30 August, 2023
Bench: Anant Ramanath Byarhj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9765
RFA No. 4177 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 4177 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., (KNNL)
REGISTERED OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR,
COFFEE BOARD BUILDING NO.1,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE WALMI BUILDING,
POONA BANGALORE NATIONAL HIGHWAY,
BELUR ROAD, DHARWAD,
REP. BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MLBC DIV NO. 1,
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
RAMDURG-591123,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
Digitally
signed by
(BY SRI. K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
VIJAYALAXMI
VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT
M BHAT Date:
2023.09.13
11:05:18
+0530 AND:
1. SRI. I.JAGANNATH (RETIRED ENGINEER)
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1A. SMT. JEEJABAI I JAGANNATH
R/O. HARANALLI-577416,
TQ AND DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
1B. SRI. GNYANOBHARAO I JAGANNATH
R/O. HARANALI-577416,
TQ AND DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9765
RFA No. 4177 of 2013
1C. SRI. I RAVINDRANATH
R/O. KENGERI SUB TOWN,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
7TH CROSS,
S.I.J 532 KENGERI-560060,
BANGALURU RURAL SOUTH TALUK.
1D. SMT. ASHA R KENGERI
R/O. KENGERI SUB TOWN,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
7TH CROSS,
S.I.J 532 KENGERI-560060,
BANGALURU RURAL SOUTH TALUK.
1E. SMT. SHOBA G SHIRAGAONKAR
R/O. KENGERI SUB TOWN,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
7TH CROSS,
S.I.J 532 KENGERI-560060,
BANGALURU RURAL SOUTH TALUK.
1F. SRI. SURENDRANATH
S/O I JAGANNATH
R/O. KENGERI SUB TOWN,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
7TH CROSS,
S.I.J 532 KENGERI-560060,
BANGALURU RURAL SOUTH TALUK.
2. SRI. SHIDRAMAPPA T ARAKERI
(RETD. EX ENGR.),
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
2A. SRI. SHARADABAI
W/O SHIDRAMAPPA ARAKERI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
2B. SRI. UDAYKUMAR SHIDRAMAPPA ARAKERI
R/O. CHALUKYA NAGAR,
SOLAPUR ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9765
RFA No. 4177 of 2013
2C. SRI. RAJENDRA SHIDRAMAPPA ARAKERI
R/O. CHALUKYA NAGAR,
SOLAPUR ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2D. SRI. RAVINDRA SHIDRAMAPPA ARAKERI
R/O. CHALUKYA NAGAR,
SOLAPUR ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2E. SRI. ULLAS SHIDRAMAPPA ARAKERI
R/O. CHALUKYA NAGAR,
SOLAPUR ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHREEVATSA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A-C)
& R2(E))
R1(D) AND R2(B)-NOTICE SERVED;
R1(A) AND (B)-DISPENSED WITH;
R1(C) AND (E)-HELD SUFFICIENT;
R1(F) AND R2(D)-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH;
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD: 22.03.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.10/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RAMDURG, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9765
RFA No. 4177 of 2013
JUDGMENT
A claim which is apparently a stale one, was made by
the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'KNNL') in O.S. No.10/08 on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg.
2. The suit is filed claiming damages against
defendant no.1 an Ex-employee of Malaprabha Left Bank
Canal Construction, Division-III, Badami and against the
legal representatives of another employee of - Malaprabha
Left Bank Canal Construction, Division-III, Badami who
was no more by the time the suit was filed.
3. Rs.7,74,173/- is claimed from first defendant
and Rs.2,58,058/- is claimed from the legal
representatives of second defendant, towards damages.
4. The plaintiff claims that the bridge construction
work was entrusted to a Contractor, by Malaprabha Left
Bank Canal Construction, Division-III, Badami, vide order
dated 04.03.1982 with a condition to complete the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9765
RFA No. 4177 of 2013
construction within six months. The construction was
completed on 01.01.1984. The bridge was handed over to
Malaprabha Left Bank Canal Construction, in October
1991. It appears that an inspection was conducted on
02.07.1994 and some observations are made to the effect
that the construction quality is inferior and in this regard
report is submitted to the higher authorities. The bridge
collapsed on 08.07.1994 and this fact was communicated
to the higher officers of the Malaprabha Left Bank Canal
Construction.
5. It is relevant to state that KNNL was
incorporated on 19.12.1998 and thereafter, the assets and
liabilities of Malaprabha Left Bank Canal Construction were
transferred to KNNL the present appellant.
6. KNNL the new entity filed the suit for damages
against the defendants named above.
7. First defendant - former employee of the
Malaprabha Left Bank Canal Construction and also the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9765
RFA No. 4177 of 2013
legal representatives of the former employee who by the
time the suit was filed was no more, contested the suit.
8. Four issues were framed. Issue no.3 is relating
to limitation. Issues no.1 and 2 are relating to the alleged
substandard construction of bridge. Issues no.1 and 2 are
held in the negative and the Court held that issue no.3 in
favour of defendants and held that the suit is barred by
limitation.
9. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and
decree, the plaintiff-appellant is in appeal.
10. Sri K.S.Patil, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant would submit that defendant no.1 and
predecessors of remaining defendants, were entrusted
with the task of supervising the construction of the bridge.
On account of substandard work the bridge collapsed in
1977. Earlier to the collapse, in 1997 itself the apparent
defects in the construction and poor quality of construction
of the bridge were noticed and the matter was informed to
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9765
RFA No. 4177 of 2013
the Higher Officer. He would submit that very fact that
the bridge collapsed in 1997, is the proof that the bridge
was constructed with the substandard material. These
factors point to the dereliction of duty and negligence on
the part of defendant no.1 and predecessor of rest of the
defendants who failed to discharge the task entrusted to
them.
11. It is his contention that had the bridge been
constructed with the quality material and had there been
proper supervision, the bridge could not have collapsed
and defendant no.1 and predecessor of remaining
defendants are squarely responsible for poor construction.
Since the bridge collapse resulted in loss, the trial Court
ought to have answered issue nos.1 and 2 in favor of the
plaintiff.
12. As far as the plea of limitation is concerned, Sri.
Patil would urge that in a suit for damages instituted by
the State Government, the limitation would be 30 years
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9765
RFA No. 4177 of 2013
from the date cause of action in 1997 and the suit is filed
in the year 2008 is in time.
13. Sri. Shreevatsa Hegde, learned counsel for the
respondents would urge that the appellant is not a
Government and appellant is a company incorporated
under the Companies Act. Article 112 of the Limitation Act
is not applicable to the appellant and the appellant cannot
take shelter under Article 112.
14. Sri. Shreevatsa Hegde, learned counsel for the
respondents would submit that the plaintiff being a
company is governed by Article 4 of the Limitation Act. It
is also his contention that the action based on tort does
not lie against the legal representatives of the deceased.
15. This Court has considered the contentions
raised at the Bar.
16. Since the issue is relating to the limitation goes
to the root of the mater and the trail Court has held that
the suit is barred by limitation, this Court is of the view
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9765
RFA No. 4177 of 2013
that issue relating to the limitation is to be decided first
and incase the suit is found to be barred by limitation,
there is no need to discuss the other issues relating to the
quality of construction of bridge and alleged negligence on
the part of the defendants.
17. As rightly pointed by Sri Shreevatsa Hegde, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the
appellant is not a State Government. Appellant is a
company registered under the Companies Act. Sine the
appellant is incorporated under the Companies Act, the
appellant cannot claim the status of a State. Article 112 of
the Limitation Act is applicable only for the Central
Government and the State Government. Since the
appellant is not a State, the benefit of Article 112 is not
available to the appellant. This being the position, as
rightly urged by Sri Shreevatsa Hegde, the governing
Article would be Article 4.
18. Under Article 4 of the Limitation Act, the
limitation prescribed is three years from the date of cause
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9765
RFA No. 4177 of 2013
of action. Assuming that the cause of action has arisen in
1997, when the bridge collapsed, then the suit ought to
have been filed within three years. The suit is filed after
eleven years. Thus the suit is barred by limitation.
19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VMB -para 1 to 12
SH-13 to end
...
