Karnataka High Court
The Section Officer, Hescom vs Smt.Vidya @ Vidyashri Wd/O Vinod Koli on 7 December, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14394
RFA No. 100328 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100328/2019
BETWEEN:
1. THE SECTION OFFICER, HESCOM,
SECTION OFFICE, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
HESCOM, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
HESCOM, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BHUSHAN B. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. SMT. VIDYA @ VIDYASHRI
BHARATHI WD/O. VINOD KOLI,
HM
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 317.
2. MASTER DARSHAN S/O. VINOD KOLI,
AGE: 3 YEARS, OCC: MINOR,
R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 317.
3. SRI. KALLAPPA S/O. MARUTI KOLI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL WORK,
R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 317.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14394
RFA No. 100328 of 2019
4. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. KALLAPPA KOLI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 317.
5. MASTER SHREYAS S/O. VINOD KOLI,
AGE: 2 YEARS, OCC: MINOR,
R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 317.
THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 5 HEREIN
ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED
BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 AND R4;
R2 AND R5 - MINORS REP. BY R1.)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, RAIBAG, IN O.S.NO.163/2017 DATED 04.02.2019 AND
DISMISS THE SUIT AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This regular first appeal is filed by the defendants
HESCOM challenging the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.163/2007 dated 04.02.2019, by the Court of
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, thereby the suit filed
by the plaintiff for seeking compensation on account of
death of deceased due to electrocution is decreed.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14394
2. Brief facts of the case. It is stated that on
07.09.2017 the deceased Vinod Kallappa Koli was working
in the agricultural land situated at Chinchali village at
about 12.40 p.m. The live wire of HESCOM was all of a
sudden fell on the deceased, due to such electrocution the
deceased died on the spot. A crime was registered before
the Kudachi Police Station. The deceased was 24 years old
at the time of incident. The plaintiffs are wife, children and
parents of the deceased. The suit filed by the plaintiffs
seeking compensation is decreed. Against this, the present
appeal is filed.
3. The defendants have appeared and denied the
incident and contended that due to negligent act on the
part of the deceased, that mishap was occurred.
Therefore, submitted the plaintiffs are not entitled for
compensation by the appellants/defendants.
4. The trial Court after framing issues regarding
whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants were
negligent in maintaining electric lines and due to such
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14394
negligence the live wire had fallen on the deceased, due to
which the deceased died and accordingly answered the
issue in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff. The death
of the deceased due to electrocution is not disputed.
Whether the deceased was negligent and as such there
was electrocution or whether there was negligence on the
part of the defendants is to be considered.
5. Ex.P.1 is the FIR and complaint, Ex.P.2 is the
inquest panchanama, Ex.P.3 is the record of rights and
Ex.P.4 is the charge sheet. Upon these documentary
evidence the deceased died due to electrocution is proved.
Ex.P.4 is the charge sheet in which it is the opinion formed
by the Investigating Officer that due to negligence in
maintaining the live wires by the defendants, the live wire
had cut and fallen on the deceased. Further, Ex.D.6 is the
complaint/report of defendants in which it is reported by
the defendant Executive Engineer that there was a heavy
load at feeder cut point brake insulator and GI wire was
cut and therefore resultantly Y electric wire was cut and
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14394
the wire fuse was jumped and when it was touched the R
wire and therefore there was a short circuit happened and
hence there is heavy load due to which the live wire was
cut at disc insulator and thus had fallen on the deceased,
due to which the deceased died.
6. This Ex.D.6 report of the defendants itself
proves that there was negligent act on the part of
defendants in maintaining the transmission process
properly. If the defendants had maintained the live wires
properly, then there could not have been cut of GI wire
and touching Y and R lines and there could not be heavy
load occurred, therefore it is proved that due to negligent
act on the part of the appellants/defendants, in
maintaining the transmission of electricity properly and
under these circumstances, the deceased died due to
electrocution. This fact is correctly appreciated by the trial
Court while answering issue No.1. Therefore, there is no
demerit found in the findings given by the trial Court.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14394
7. So far as quantum of compensation is
concerned, the trial Court had considered the age of the
deceased at 24 years and applying the multiplier 18 and
considering the monthly wages of the deceased at
Rs.8,000/- per month and deducted 1/4th towards his
personal and living expenses according to the size of the
family and thus determined the compensation amount is
found to be just and proper. The plaintiffs have not
preferred any appeal. If the plaintiffs had preferred
appeal, then the compensation would have been more. But
the plaintiffs have not filed appeal. Therefore, whatever
compensation determined and awarded by the trial Court
is found to be just and proper. Therefore the appeal is
found to be devoid of merit. Hence it is liable to be
dismissed.
8. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14394
ii) The judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.163/2007 dated 04.02.2019, by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, is
hereby confirmed.
iii) No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
MRK
CT-ASC
