Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Ramappa Shankareppa Jirgal on 13 October, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13758
WP No. 85735 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 85735 OF 2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HESCOM, NAVANAGAR,
HUBBALLI - 580 025, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) ,
O AND M DIV. HESCOM ATHANI
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SECTION OFFICER,
O AND M DIV. HESCOM,
ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B. S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMAPPA SHANKAREPPA JIRGAL ,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SHEGUNASHI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
2. SHANTA RAMAPPA JIRGAL
Location: High
Court of SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, R1 AND R3 ARE TREATED ARE LR'S OF R2.
Dharwad
3. MISS LAXMI RAMAPPA JIRGAL ,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SHEGUNASHI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13758
WP No. 85735 of 2013
HC-KAR
DATED 31.08.2013 AND THE AWARD DATED 02.09.2013, PASSED BY
THE PERMANENT LOK-ADALAT, BELAGAVI, O.P.NO.6/2012 PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-F AND G RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioners - HESCOM (hereinafter it is
referred to as "the Corporation" for short) is before this
Court calling in question an award of the permanent Lok
Adalath dated 02.09.2013, which determines certain
amount of compensation to be paid to the respondents on
account of the death of their son.
2. Heard Shri B.S. Kamate, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Smt. Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel for
the respondents.
3. The facts that led the Corporation to approach
this Court in the subject petition are as follows:
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 files an application under
Section 22(C)(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act before
the permanent Lok Adalath, Belgaum against the present
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13758
HC-KAR
petitioners seeking compensation on the ground that their
son had died on 20.11.2011 at the time when he was
cutting grass in the land belonging to him on account of
coming in contact with live wire. The Permanent Lok
Adalath, on the objections filed by the present petitioners
passes an award determining certain compensation. While
so doing, it observes that the Corporation officials have
been negligent in leaving the live wire open, which came in
contact with the son of the claimants, while cutting grass.
Learned counsel submits that, it is the negligence on the
part of the son of the claimants as well and not the entire
liability of the Corporation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
Smt. Surabhi Kulkarni submits that, the issue in the lis
stands completely answered by what is rendered by the
Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.1383 of 2020 and
connected cases in identical circumstances.
5. Learned counsel submits that the Coordinate
Bench has determined the liability of the Corporation, in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13758
HC-KAR
such case, the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench
held at paragraph No.38 as follows:
"38. Accordingly in both the cases, viz.,
(a) W.P.No.6087/2019 by no stretch of imagination
could it be asserted that the child ought to have
exercised due care and caution in not going near the
high tension electrical line and coming within the
induction zone as the child could not be expected to
maintain the buffer distance.
(b) In W.P.No.53302/2018, the child could not be
expected not to carry any objects under the high
tension electrical line and could not be imposed with
such duty of care and caution as that expected of
adults and where a child has acted according to
normal 'impulse and instincts', question of fastening
of contributory negligence on the child would not
arise.
This is only in addition to the discussion made
relating to absolute liability where the issue stands
settled that none of these defences which are sought
to be relied upon to contend contributory negligence
could ever come into play."
6. The said judgment is tossed before the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No.861 of 2022 and connected
matters, which comes to be dismissed and the Apex Court
by an order dated 23.05.2025 refuses to interfere with the
orders passed by the Coordinate Bench and the Division
Bench.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13758
HC-KAR
7. In the light of the issue standing completely
answered by the Coordinate Bench, no submission of the
Corporation can be taken note of and the law being settled
that the liability, is entirely on the Corporation. Therefore,
the petition, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
8. The amount in deposit i.e., before this Court shall
be forthwith released in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3
by the Registry after due verification of the documents.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP/CT-ASC
