THE CHAIRMAN vs MR RAQHEEBULLA KHAN
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1747 OF 2018 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
K.G.ROAD, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE – 560 009.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.
L J AVENUE, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE – 570 023
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE)
CIRCLE OFFICE
CHAMUESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY CO., LTD.
HARSHA ROAD,
MYSORE – 570 023
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
CHAMUESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.,
CHAMARAJANAGAR – 571 313
5. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
CHAMUESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.,
SUB DIVISION, HANUR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST. – 571 439
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. LAXMIKANTHA K.B., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VANDANA S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
AND:
MR RAQHEEBULLA KHAN
S/O LATE ALLABAKSHI
MAJOR
R/AT MANGALA VILLAGE
KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 443
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA R. C., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 27.04.2018 PASSED IN
R.A.NO. 33/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., KILLEGALA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 23.04.2016 PASSED IN
OS.NO.76/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, AND
JMFC., KOLLEGALA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants were defendants in O.S. No. 76/2010 filed by
the respondent-plaintiff against the appellants-defendants seeking
compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest at
12% p.a. from 18.04.2004 till realisation on account of the injuries
and permanent disablement suffered by the respondent and for
other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the
appellants, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and
decree dated 23.04.2016 which was assailed by the respondent in
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
R.A. No. 33/2017 which came to be allowed by the first appellate
Court which set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court
and decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part by directing the
appellants to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.2,04,503/- together
with interest at 6% p.a. from 26.03.2008 till realisation. Aggrieved
by the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court,
appellants are before this Court by way of the present appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to by their
respective ranks before the trial Court.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
respondent-plaintiff contended that he was working as an auto
driver and residing in his house at Mangala village, Kollegal Taluk
and had obtained electricity connection to his house. It was
contended that on 18.04.2004 at about 12.45 p.m. when he was
watching Television, the plaintiff noticed that there was variation in
electricity power and when he tried to switch of the Television, he
got an electric shock as a result of which he suffered severe burn
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
injuries leading to hospitalization and permanent disability and
disfigurement to his body on account of the negligence on the part
of the appellants and as such he instituted the aforesaid suit
against the defendants. The defendants disputed and denied the
various allegations and claim made by the plaintiff and sought for
dismissal of the suit. It was contended that there was no
negligence on the part of the defendants and the electric shock
occurred when a lorry driver drove his vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against an electric pole erected on
the road by the defendants due to which, there was short circuit
and a police complaint against the said lorry driver was filed and he
was not made a party to the suit which was bad for non joinder of
necessary parties. It was contended that apart from the fact that
the defendants paid Rs.44,000/- to the plaintiff on humanitarian
grounds, since the plaintiff had not installed a MCB in his house,
there was fluctuation in the electricity resulting in electric shock and
as such there was no negligence or breach of duty by the
appellants against whom the instant suit was liable to be
dismissed.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
4. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following
issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that due to the negligent
act of the defendants, that on 18.04.2004 at about 12.45
p.m. he had an electric short circuit in the house of the
plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he has
suffered total disability?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has spent more
than Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed
for?
5. What order or decree?
5. Plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and two witnesses as
PW2 and PW3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.186 while the
defendants examined defendant No.5 as DW1 and two witnesses
as DW2 and DW3 and documentary evidence at Exs.D.1 and D.2
were marked on their behalf.
6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit by
passing the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 23.04.2016
which was assailed by the respondent-plaintiff in R.A. No. 33/2017
which was allowed by the first appellate Court by setting aside the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
judgment and decree of the trial Court and partly decreeing the suit
of the plaintiff thereby directing the appellants to pay compensation
in a sum of Rs.2,04,503/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from
26.03.2008 till realisation by holding as under:
“16. POINT No.1 and 2: The plaintiff has filed the suit as an
indigent person under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC. The learned Trial
Court has permitted the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. The
plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of compensation arising out of
injuries suffered by him on account of electric shock at Rs. 5 lakhs
along with interest at 12 % PA from the date of incident till the date
of realization, costs and such other things.
17. The plaintiff has adduced his evidence as PW1. The plaintiff
has examined Sri.Naseer Khan as PW2, Sri. Syed Riyaz Ahamed as
PW3. The plaintiff has exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P186 as under:
Sl.No. Particulars of Documents Ex.P
01. Complaint Ex.P1
02. Doctor certificate Ex.P2
03. Writ petition No. 7123/05 Ex.P3
04. Order sheet maintained in Writ petition Ex.P4
05. Photos and negative Ex.P5 to P9
06. Discharge summary Ex.P10
07. Discharge bill Ex.P11 to P112
08. Prescriptions Ex.P113 to P186
18. The defendants have examined Sri. Ananda. D.S as DW1. The
defendants have examined Sri. Sobage Gowda as DW2. The
defendants have examined Sri. K. Santhosh, the then PSI, Hanur
police station as DW2. Defendants have exhibited Ex.D1 and D2 as
under;
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
Sl.No. Particulars of Documents Ex.D
01. Certified copy of FIR in Cr No.55/2004 Ex.D1
02. Certified copy of Crime register extract Ex.D2
19. The plaintiff has reiterated the plaint averments in his affidavit
evidence. In his cross-examination he has deposed that he is in the
occupation of his residential house as a tenant for a period of 3
years. He has enquired about the electrical wiring of his house he has
no special knowledge about the wiring. The PW1 was cross-examined
by the defendants regarding the quality of wiring, the mechanism of
wiring and PW1 was questioned about installation of MCB box. PW1
deposed that he is not aware about MCB box. He has not complained
about the incident. He took treatment at Holy Cross Hospital,
Kamagere and subsequently he was shifted to Mission Hospital,
Mysuru. The doctor at Holy Cross Hospital has not recorded his
statement and police have visited the Hospital. He has deposed that
he was watching the TV, when TV was suddenly switched off he went
near the TV to know why it is switched off, at that time the accident
occurred. He denied that since he has not installed MCB the short
circuit occurred. He denied that the electrical wire was left Brocken in
his street and in several houses electrical short circuit occurred. He
deposed that he is not aware that a lorry dashed against the
electrical pole while taking reverse, as such electrical live wires came
in contact with each other and short circuit occurred. He has deposed
that he is not aware that the defendant No.5 has filed a police
complaint against the driver of lorry in Cr No. 55/2004. He denied
that the accident did not occur due to the negligent act of the
defendants. He denied that he has taken treatment at Seetha Ranga
Hospital, Mysuru on 10.04.2009 in respect of some other diseases
and furnished the said bills. He denied that he has exaggerated the
medical expenses.
20. PW2 Nasir khan has supported the case of plaintiff in his
affidavit evidence. He has deposed about the accident and injures
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
sustained by the plaintiff. In his cross-examination he has deposed
that the live wire fell on the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
sustained grievous shock in the said accident. He denied that the
accident occurred when the driver of a lorry tried to take reverse and
collided against the electric pole. The PW1 was residing in a rented
house. The owner of the said house got the electrical connection to
the house. He deposed that the main electric supply line fell on the
house of the plaintiff. He deposed that he is not aware that if any
insulated wire falls on any object no electrical short circuit will occur.
He deposed that he knew about the MCB. He deposed that he is not
aware that there will be no grounding as ESCBP is installed under the
ground. He denied that there was no negligence on the part of
defendants.
21. PW3 has supported the case of plaintiff in his affidavit evidence.
He has deposed about the accident and injury sustained by the
plaintiff. In his cross-examination PW3 deposed that the plaintiff was
residing in a rented house and having electric supply to his house.
The accident occurred as an electric conductor fell on the house of
the plaintiff. PW3 deposed that a live wire fell on the house of
plaintiff. He deposed that he is not aware if any insulated wire falls
on any object there will no electrical accident. He deposed that he
knew about the MCB. He denied that there was no negligence on the
part of defendants.
22. DW1 Sri. Anada. B.S is working as Asst. Executive Engineer,
CHESCOM. He has reiterated the written statement averments in his
affidavit evidence. In his cross-examination he deposed that he is
deposing on the basis of documents available in his office. The
plaintiff claim the compensation for the accident occurred while he
was watching TV in his house. He dined that the accident occurred
not due to the collision of lorry with an electric pole. He has admitted
that they have paid Rs. 44,000/- as compensation to the plaintiff. He
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
denied that the defendants are liable to pay compensation to the
plaintiff.
23. DW2 Sri. Sobage Gowda is the complainant against the lorry
driver. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on
18.04.2004 at about 12.45 PM a lorry hit against the electrical pole
while taking reverse. On account of said accident the electrical wires
came in contact with each other and electrical shock circuit occurred.
On account of the said short circuit TVs and refrigerators in many
houses burnt and some persons have sustained minor injuries as per
the complaint given by the villagers over the phone on 19.04.2004.
Immediately on receiving the phone calls he visited Mangala village
and found that on account of the accident caused by the lorry
electrical pole was bent and the electrical wires were hanging. He has
lodged the complaint with Hanur police in Cr No. 5/2004 for the
offences punishable u/s 279, 337, 427 IPC against the driver of the
lorry. He has examined the electrical lines of the houses where short
circuits were occurred. He found that the consumers who have
installed MCB have not sustained any electrical accident. The
consumers who have not installed MCB in their houses have suffered
electrical short circuit. Had the plaintiff installed MCB the mishap
would have been avoided. Installation of MCB is compulsory. As per
his record the house where the plaintiff was residing was installed
with MCB and subsequently it was removed. This fact came to his
knowledge on the day of inspection. The owner of the house has
informed that he has not installed MCB. The accident occurred due to
the negligence of house owner and lorry driver. The defendants have
not committed any negligent act. The plaintiff has filed the suit to
make wrongful gain.
24. DW2 in his cross-examination has deposed that he has filed
the complaint against the driver of the lorry. He has not followed the
said criminal case. He has admitted that whenever the electrical
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
supply is given to a house they will ensure the installation of MCB
and even after giving electrical connection they will verify the
installation of MCB. He has admitted that the house where the
plaintiff was residing was installed with MCB. He denied that the
electrical accident occurred due to the negligence of defendants and
not due to the accident that occurred due to collision of lorry. He
denied that the plaintiff has suffered grievous injuries. He denied
Ex.P5 to P9. He deposed that he do not remember that the plaintiff
has taken treatment at Holy Cross Hospital and K.R. Hospital,
Mysuru. The defendants have paid Rs.44,000/- compensation on
humanitarian grounds. He denied that the plaintiff has spent lakhs of
rupees towards his treatment.
25. DW3 was examined by the defendants to show that the driver
of lorry has pleaded guilty to the accusation made against him and
he has paid 2,500/- as fine before the Court. DW 3 in his cross-
examination by the plaintiff admitted that in Ex.D2 it is not recited by
whose negligence the accident occurred.
26. From the materials available on record it is clear that on
18.04.2004 at about 12.45 PM the plaintiff suffered electrical shock
on account of which he has sustained burn injuries over his hands,
legs, chest. He took treatment at Holy Cross Hospital initially and he
was shifted to Mission Hospital, Mysuru for further treatment. The
plaintiff is alleging that due to the negligence of defendants the
electrical short circuit occurred and he has suffered grievous injuries
and total disability of his body. The defendants are denying that the
accident occurred due to their negligence. The defendants are
contending that a lorry driver hit against the electrical pole while
reversing his lorry as such the wires came into contact with each
other and electrical short circuit occurred.
27. In order to evidence their contentions the defendants have
examined DW3 apart from exhibiting Ex.D1 and D2. In fact the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
plaintiff has exhibited Ex.P1. DW2 Sobage Gowda has filed a
complaint against the driver of lorry with Hanur police for the
offences punishable u/s 279, 337 and 427 IPC.
28. The learned Trial Court has accepted the contention raised by
the defendants that the accident occurred due to the negligent
driving of lorry by its driver. The learned Trial Court has observed
that the defendants are absolved from their liability.
29. The defendants are engaged in the transmission and supply of
electricity which is a hazardous activity. The defendants are denying
their liability on the count that they have not committed any
negligent act or breach of duty.
30. The plaintiff has suffered grievous injuries and disability on his
body on account of electrical accident. The defendants are not
denying the electrical accident that has occurred in the house of
plaintiff and his neighborhood.
31. The learned Trial Court has not invoked the concept of strict
liability in this case. It has simply accepted the defence put forth by
the defendants. Hence a reference made to the following decision of
Supreme Court of India.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Coram :- K. T. THOMAS, S. N. PHUKAN JJ.
Decided on January 11,2002
MADHYA PRADESHELECTRICITY BOARD
VERSUS
SHAIL KUMARI
8. Even assuming that all such measures have been
adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving
hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable
under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or
carelessness on the part of the managers of such
undertakings. The basis of such liability is the
foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such
activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in
law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which
arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way
i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the
foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable
precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be
done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable
when the action is based on any negligence attributed.
But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict
liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of
whether he could have avoided the particular harm by
taking precautions.
9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in
English Common Law when it was propounded in the
celebrated case of Rylands vs. Fletcher (1868 Law
Reports (3) HL 330), Blackburn J., the author of the said
rule had observed thus in the said decision :
"The rule of law is that the person who, for his own
purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there
anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it
at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie
answerable for all the damage which is the natural
consequence of its escape."
10. There are seven exceptions formulated by means
of case law to the doctrine of strict liability. It is
unnecessary to enumerate those exceptions baring one
which is this. "Act of stranger i.e. if the escape was
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
caused by the unforeceable act of a stranger, the rule
does not apply."
(vide Page 535 Winfield on Tort, 15th Edn.)
11. The rule of strict liability has been approved and
followed in many subsequent decisions in England. A
recent decision in recognition of the said doctrine is
rendered by the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co.
Ltd. vs. Eastern Counties Leather Plc. (1994 (1) All
England Law Reports (HL) 53). The said principle gained
approval in India, and decisions of the High Courts are a
legion to that effect. A Constitution Bench of this Court
in Charan Lal Sahu vs. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613
and a Division Bench in Gujarat State Road Transport
Corpn. vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234
had followed with approval the principle in Rylands vs.
Fletcher. By referring to the above two decisions a two
Judge Bench of this Court has reiterated the same
principle in Kaushnuma Begum vs. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9.
12. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC
395 this Court has gone even beyond the rule of strict
liability by holding that "where an enterprise is engaged
in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and
harm is caused on any one on account of the accident in
the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly
and absolutely liable to compensate those who are
affected by the accident, such liability is not subject to
any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability
under the rule in Rylands vs. Flectcher."
32. The learned Trial Court has accepted the contention raised by
the defendants that the electric short circuit occurred in the house of
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
the plaintiff on account of the accident caused by the driver of lorry
while he hit an electrical pole while taking his vehicle in reverse
direction. The evidence of DW2 shows that electrical short circuit
occurred not only in the house of the plaintiff but also in several
houses situated in the same street. The defendants have stated that
when the lorry hit the electrical pole, wires came in contact with each
other and fire broke open resulting in electric short circuit. They are
contending that the electric short circuit has not occurred in the
houses where MCBs are installed. The electric short circuit occurred
in the house of the plaintiff as he had removed MCB installation in his
house. They have admitted the occurrence of the electric short circuit
and the injury caused to the plaintiff but denied their liability. In view
of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the
defendants cannot escape their liability since their liability to
compensate the plaintiff as their act does not fall under the
exceptions to “strict liability”. The defendants are liable to
compensate the plaintiff irrespective of any negligence or
carelessness on their part, when they have indulged in such a risky
undertaking of supply of electricity, where the risk is inherent in the
very nature of their activity.
33. The defendants are contending that they are not liable to pay
compensation to the plaintiff as the owner of plaintiff’s tenanted
house has removed MCB installation. If MCB installation is in his
house the mishap could have been avoided. DW1 and DW2 have
admitted that MCB was installed in the house of the plaintiff when the
electricity supply was given to that house. DW2 claimed that it was
removed subsequently. DW2 in his cross examination admitted that
even after giving electrical connection they would verify whether the
MCB installation is intact. In this case the defendants have not
discharged their duty of ensuring that MCB installation installed in the
house of plaintiff is intact.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
34. The defendants have taken up a contention that the plaintiff
has failed to notify the Electrical Inspector about the incident within
the prescribed period as per Section 161 of Electricity Act, as such
they are not liable. The Learned Trial Court has observed that it has
gone through Section 161 of Electricity Act and found that the
plaintiff has not complied with the said section and came to the
conclusion that the defendants are not liable to pay compensation.
Hence, a reference is made to said Section, which reads as follows:
[Section : 161] Notice of accidents and inquiries
(1) If any accident occurs in connection with the
generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of
electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric
lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results
or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or
in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall
give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury
actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such
time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such
other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the
Appropriate Government may by general or special order,
direct.
(2) The Appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit,
require any Electrical Inspector, or any other person appointed
by it in this behalf, to inquire and report--
(a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the
safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in
connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution,
supply or use of electricity, or
(b) as to the manner in, and extent to, which the
provisions of this Act or rules and regulations made
thereunder or of any licence, so far as those provisions affect
the safety of any person, have been complied with.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
(3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person
holding an inquiry under sub-section (2) shall have all the
powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 Of 1908) for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of
witnesses and compelling the production of documents and
material objects, and every person required by an Electrical
Inspector be legally bound to do so within the meaning of
S.176 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
35. Section 161 of Electricity Act, 2003 is para matiria with
Section 33 of Electricity Act,1910. In view of Section 176 of
Electricity Act, 2003, the Central Government has framed Rules
regarding Intimation of Accidents (Form and Time of Service of
Notice) Rules, 2004 (GSR 1(E), dt.22.12.2004) with effect from
1.1.2005. Rule 3 deals with Intimation of accidents, which reads as
under:
(1) If any accident occurs in connection with the generation,
transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in
connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical
plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to
have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury
to a human being or an animal, such person or any authorized
person of the generating company or licensee, not below the
rank of a Junior Engineer or equivalent shall send to the
Inspector a telegraphic report within 24 hours of the
knowledge of the occurrence of the fatal accident and a report
in writing in Form A within 48 hours of the knowledge of
occurrence of fatal and all other accidents. Where possible a
telephonic message should also be given to the Inspector
immediately, if the accident comes to the knowledge of the
authorized officer of the generating company/licensee or other
person concerned.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
36. It is clear from the above provision that it was incumbent
upon the officials of defendant company to notify the Electrical
Inspector about the accident occurred. They have failed to inform the
Electrical Inspector about the accident within the prescribed time.
They are shifting the liability of notifying the incident on the plaintiff
who was fighting for his life. The plaintiff being an ignorant person
about the procedure to be followed has not intimated to the Electrical
Inspector. It is doubtful whether the plaintiff knew or knows about
the existence of office of Electrical Inspector. The defendants who
have failed in discharge of their duties have adopted a convenient
method to award Rs.44,000/- as compensation to the plaintiff by
projecting the payment of compensation is an humanitarian act. If
the Electrical Inspector had conducted an enquiry it would have
thrown light on the negligence of defendants or if any breach
committed by the plaintiff. The defendants by not complying with
statutory requirement of notifying the accident to the Electrical
Inspector have deprived the plaintiff to have a fair opportunity to get
the assessment of the situation by the Competent Authority. In such
circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be held responsible for non
compliance of Section 161 of Electricity Act.
37. The defendants have not explained under which provisions
they have taken a decision to compensate the plaintiff by paying
Rs.44,000/- on humanitarian grounds. How they have assessed the
loss and the grounds for arriving at a decision to pay Rs.44,000/-
only to the plaintiff. In the absence of proper materials placed by
them it has to be concluded that the defendants have accepted their
liability under the doctrine of “strict liability” though they have
refused the allegation of negligence on their part. In such
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the defendants are liable to
pay compensation to the plaintiff.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
38. The plaintiff has claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from
the defendants. The Plaintiff has stated that he was eking out his
livelihood by plying Auto-rickshaw and was earning Rs.300/- Per Day.
On account of the accident he has suffered burn injuries to his right
hand, left forearm, front of chest and dorsum of both feet. His right
thumb and right forefinger are amputated at the base. He has stated
that he is unable to do any work. He has lost his livelihood. The
Plaintiff has exhibited Certificate Issued by District Surgeon, District
Hospital, Chamarajanagar to evidence the injuries suffered by him.
The Plaintiff has exhibited Ex.P10 discharge summary issued by Holds
Worth Memorial Hospital, Mysuru. In Ex.P10 it is recited that the
plaintiff has suffered electrical burn injuries with gangrene of Right
Thumb/Index with multiple burnt areas all Lower Limbs and chest.
The Plaintiff has not examined the doctor/surgeon who has treated
him or the doctor/surgeon who has issued Ex.P2. However, the
exhibits like Medical Prescriptions and Medical bills exhibited by him
show that he was treated as an inpatient from 18.04.2004 to
27.05.2004 at Holdsworth Memorial Hospital, Mysuru for electrical
burn injuries and has suffered amputation of Right thumb and index
finger. Ex.P2 shows that the petitioner has suffered 70% of disability.
It is settled law that the percentage of disability cannot be equated to
functional disability. It depends on the nature of injury, profession /
occupation of the injured. The plaintiff is contending that he was an
auto rickshaw driver and was earning Rs.300/- per day. Now, he is
unable to do any work. The nature of injuries suffered by the plaintiff
and the line of treatment he has undergone show that the plaintiff is
unable to indulge in manual labour as before the accident. He has
suffered loss right thumb and index finger, as such those said injuries
have resulted in permanent partial disablement. In the absence of
evidence of surgeon, the Court has to consider Schedule I Part II
Entry 9 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to determine the
percentage of loss of earning capacity of the plaintiff, which shows
the percentage of loss of earning capacity at 20%. Apart from
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
amputation of right thumb and index finger the plaintiff has suffered
burn injuries on chest and lower limb. In Ex.P2 the disability of the
plaintiff is shown at 70%. Considering the entire materials on record,
I am of the opinion that it is just and expedient to assess functional
disability of the plaintiff at 30%. The plaintiff who was working as an
auto rickshaw driver is unable to furnish any document to show his
income. The Plaintiff has not furnished the details of his dependents.
However, the plaint averments show that he has lost his wife. His
children are depending on him. In the absence of proper materials to
assess the income of the plaintiff the Court has to take in to
consideration the Minimum Wages Act, the Wages under MNREG Act.
The accident occurred on 18.04.2004. Hence, considering the
circumstances of the case, the income of the plaintiff at the time of
accident may be assessed at Rs.100/- per day. The percentage of
functional disability of the plaintiff is assessed at 30%. The plaintiff
has not furnished his age proof. In his affidavit evidence filed on
23.11.14 his age is shown as 37 years. In Ex.P10, his age is shown
as 36 years. Ex.P10 is dated: 27.05.2004. In the absence of proper
materials on record, the age of the plaintiff is taken as 36 years as on
the date of accident. The proper multiplier applicable is 15 as per the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SARALA VERMA
reported in 2009(6) SUPREME COURT CASES 121. The future loss of
income of the plaintiff is worked out as under;
i. A= Rs.3,000 X 30% (Functional disability of the
Plaintiff)=Rs.900/-
Rs.900 X 12 Months X 15 (Multiplier) =1,62,000-00
The future loss of income of the plaintiff is determined at
Rs.1,62,000-00.
39. The plaintiff has exhibited Ex.P11 to Ex.P112 medical bills and
Ex.P113 to Ex.P186 medical prescriptions to evidence his medical
expenses towards the treatment. The defendants have denied the
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
said exhibits but have not placed any materials contrary to the claim
of plaintiff. The Learned Trial Court has accepted that the plaintiff has
spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards his treatment.
40. Ex.P11 evidences that the plaintiff has spent Rs.22,702/-
towards hospital charges. Ex.P12 to Ex.P112 show that the plaintiff
has spent Rs.53,801/- towards medicines. Thus, the plaintiff has
spent Rs.76,503/- towards his treatment. The plaintiff is entitled for
reimbursement said Rs.76,503/-.
41. The plaintiff has undergone lot of physical pain and mental
trauma on account of the accident. He has incurred expenses
towards travelling, extra nourishment, attendant charges loss of
amenities etc., In all the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/-
under these heads. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the following
compensation from the defendants.
Loss of future income Rs. 1,62,000-00
Medical expenses Rs. 76,503-00
Pain & suffering &
Other incidental expenses Rs. 20,000-00
Total Rs. 2,48,503-00
The defendants are liable to pay Rs.2,48,503-00 as compensation to
the plaintiff. They are entitled to give set off to Rs.44,000/-. Hence,
the liability of the defendants works out at Rs.2,04,503-00. The
plaintiff is entitled for interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of
suit i.e. 26.03.2008 till the date of realization.
42. In view of the above discussion I answer the Issue No.1 in the
affirmative, Issue No:2, 3, 4 and re-casted Issue partly affirmative.
In the result the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with costs.
43. In view of the careful analysis of the materials available on
record, it is clear that the Learned Trial Court has not properly
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
appreciated materials available on record. The learned Trial Court has
not properly answered the Issues and as arrived at a wrong
conclusion to dismiss the suit holding that the Plaintiff is not entitled
for the suit reliefs. The plaintiff has made out good grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the
learned Trial Court. The impugned judgment and decree deserves to
be set-aside. The plaintiff is entitled for compensation from the
defendants as determined above. The impugned judgment and
decree is not maintainable both under law and facts of the case.
Accordingly, I answer Point No:1 and 2 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
44. POINT No.3 : In view of the findings on Point No:1 and 2, I
pass the following;
ORDER
The Regular Appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff
is hereby allowed with costs.
The judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.76/2010 dated: 23.04.2016 by the Learned Prl.,
Civil Judge, & J.M.F.C., Kollegala is hereby set-aside.
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part. The
plaintiff is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,04,503/-
(Two Lakhs Four Thousand Five Hundred and Three
only) along with interest at 6% PA from the date of
26.03.2008 till the date of realization.
After realization of compensation amount by the
plaintiff from the defendants, the State of Karnataka
shall have primary charge to recover Court fee of Rs.
33,375/- out of the compensation amount, as Order
XXXIII Rule 10 CPC.
Draw decree accordingly.”
7. As can be seen from the aforesaid judgment and decree of
the first appellate Court, the entire material on record comprising of
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
the pleadings and evidence of both parties has been correctly and
properly considered and appreciated by the first appellate Court
which has partly upheld the claim of the plaintiff. The first appellate
Court came to the conclusion that the injuries caused to the plaintiff
on 18.04.2004 was due to the electrical shock suffered by him at
12.45 p.m. on that day; in this context, the first appellate Court has
invoked the doctrine of ‘strict liability’ by noticing that the defence
putforth by the appellants-defendants does not fall within any of the
exceptions to the said doctrine of ‘strict liability’ especially when the
appellants are involved in the activity of supply of electricity which
is inherently risky having regard to the nature of activity. The first
appellate Court took note of the fact that the appellants-defendants
had not taken sufficient precautions to ensure that no electrical
shock would occur in the premises of the petitioner, particularly
when there was neither nor acceptable evidence to establish that
there was no MCB installed by the plaintiff and on the other hand,
both DW2 and DW3 had categorically admitted that the plaintiff had
in fact installed an MCB in his house; the first appellate Court also
rejected the contention of the appellants-defendants that the
plaintiff having not notified the electrical inspector under Section
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54363
RSA No. 1747 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010285742018
161 of the Electricity Act by holding that the said duty was cast
upon the appellants-defendants and not upon the respondent-
plaintiff who could not be held liable for the incident in question.
8. Further, the first appellate Court correctly and properly
quantified and calculated the compensation payable to the
respondent-plaintiff and recorded categorical findings of fact nor
only as regards the liability on the part of the appellants to
compensate the respondent but also on the claim of the
respondent that the appellants were liable to pay compensation to
him. The impugned judgment and decree based on categorical
findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court on the basis of
pleadings and evidence and without overlooking or excluding any
evidence cannot be said to give rise to any question of law, much
less substantial question of law warranting interference by this
Court in the present appeal. Accordingly I do not find any merit in
the appeal which is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BMC/BVV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47