The Managing Director vs State Commissioner
2025 Latest Caselaw 10154 Kant

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

NC: 2025:KHC:46327

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 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46327

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

NC: 2025:KHC:46327

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;

NC: 2025:KHC:46327

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.

NC: 2025:KHC:46327

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

NC: 2025:KHC:46327

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