Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Smt. Veda @ Vedavathi on 12 February, 2024
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5816-DB
WA No. 62 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.S.DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
Digitally signed BETWEEN:
by ANUSHA V
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Location: HIGH
BESCOM, K.R.CIRCLE
COURT OF BENGALURU-560 001
KARNATAKA
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(O & M) BESCOM
BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION
BENGALURU ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. T.S. VENKATESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. VEDA @ VEDAVATHI
W/O M.S. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. KUM. KAVYASHREE
D/O M.S. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
3. KUM. PADMASHREE
W/O M.S. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
4. SMT.LEELAMMA
W/O M. SREEKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.380
4TH 'B' MAIN, MARUTHI LAYOUT
VASANTHAPURA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5816-DB
WA No. 62 of 2024
BENGALURU-560 061
5. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
(BBMP), REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
CORPORATION CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001 ...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER
DATED 17.08.2023 IN WP NO.41765/2016 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU BENCH AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Managing Director of BESCOM1 and one of the officials
have challenged the order dated August 17, 2023
in W.P.No.41765/2016 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge
directing payment of compensation of Rs.14,73,164/-
to the writ petitioners.
2. Heard Shri T.S.Venkatesha, learned advocate for the
appellant both on delay and merits.
3. Brief facts of the case are, legal heirs of one
Shri M.S.Krishnamurthy have brought the instant writ petition
contending inter alia that Krishnamurthy died due to
electrocution when he came in contact with live cable.
On consideration of material on record, Hon'ble Single Judge has
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.
NC: 2024:KHC:5816-DB
noted M.P.Electricity Board Vs.Shail Kumari and Others2 and held
that BESCOM and BBMP3 are liable to pay compensation. Having
perused the quantum of compensation awarded in para 13, we
are of the view that Hon'ble Single Judge has awarded
compensation in consonance with National Insurance Co. Ltd vs
Pranay Sethi4.
4. Shri Venkatesha, urged following contentions;
(i) that writ petition is not maintainable in a case
of this nature;
(ii) in M.P.Electricity Board, the aggrieved party had
initially approached the Civil Court;
(iii) BBMP is also a party-respondent in the
writ petition and liable to pay; and
(iv) that though liability is held jointly and severally
against both BESCOM and BBMP, the ratio of liability
is not forthcoming in the order.
5. With regard to first and second contentions that
writ petition is not maintainable and the argument that legal heirs
of the deceased ought to have approached the Civil Court,
2002 (2) SCC 162
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
4 2017 (16) SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC:5816-DB
we may record that factum of death of Shri Krishnamurthy
is not denied. His age is also not denied. The Hon'ble Single
Judge has calculated the compensation based on the notional
income. The date of death is 03.08.2014. If the contention
of the appellant is to be accepted that the respondents will
have to be relegated to the Civil Court. Having noticed that
compensation is calculated based on Pranay Sethi
it would not be appropriate to relegate writ petitioners
to the Civil Court after lapse of nearly one decade.
6. With regard to contention that liability is apportioned
between BBMP and BESCOM, we may record that both
are instrumentalities of the State. It is settled that
instrumentalities of the State or the State Authority shall
not litigate interse between themselves. We trust and hope
that the departments, if aggrieved, can resolve dispute interse
by approaching the administrative higher-ups.
7. In view of the above discussion and having considered the
appeal both on merits and delay, we find no merit in this appeal
and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2024
also stands dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:5816-DB
8. In view of disposal of this appeal, pending interlocutory
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they
stand disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AV
