The main legal point established in the judgment is that a carrier can maintain a suit for damages, and interest awards should be based on statutory provisions such as the Interest Act, 1978.

CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the Karnataka electricity Board (for short the 'board') it is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 3rd July 1986 in O. S. No, 19 of 1983 on the file of the Civil Judge, gadag.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT Halappa, is a transport carrier. He was carrying thirty-two docras of cotton belonging to various cotton growers from Hebbal in Shirahatti taluk to Hubli Market on 8-4-1981. His vehicle had the registration mark MYW 8383. The goods belonged to persons who were named in Annexure to the plaint at Schedule-A. While thirty-two docras of cotton lint was thus being carried on the way, at Shiggli Toll Naka in Lakshmeshwar Town a tire accident took place due to the short circuit by touching the over-head electric wirelines belonging to the Board. (First defendant is the Board ; 2nd defendant is the Chief engineer of the Board and the 3rd defendant is the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Board, Laxmeshwar, taluka Shirahatti, District Dharwad ). Plaintiff pleaded that the over-head electric wire lines were at a height of 14 to 15 feet from the ground and were not guarded with safety covers. They were stung very loosely giving room for sagness which resulted in the accident. He pleaded that the sagness, height maintained, the span loose conductors etc. ; were all contrary to the provisions of the Indian electricity Act. In the circumstances ha prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 52,904-35 ps as damages for thirty-two docras of Jayadhar cotton lint that was burnt and interest thereon at 12 percent per annum as it was due to the fault and negligence of the defendants.

( 3 ) THE defendants in their written statement contended that the suit of the plaintiff was not true and bona fide and was not tenable in law. They further contended that the Court had no Jurisdiction. They also further contended that the suit was barred by time not having been filed within six months from the date of accident. They denied the contention of the plaintiff that there were loose conductors touching each other while the plaintiffs' lorry was passing the said spot. They denied the other allegations in regard to the span, height of the sagging wires etc. They asserted that, periodical checks for maintenance were carried at Lakshmesh- war town, which is situated in the main road where number of vehicles, buses, loaded lorries and trucks move about. They, in substance, pleaded that there was no negligence on their part. They alleged that the plaintiff was carrying cotton docras without adopting safety methods and without taking care of the said docras. They however; admitted that it was not possible to ascertain the reason for the accident. It could have been the plaintiffs mistake like throwing beedis or cigarates on the cotton docras or somebody else throwing burning cigarates etc. ,

( 4 ) ON such pleadings as many as five issues were framed. They are as follows :1. Whether the plaintiff proves that on 8-4-1981, 32 Jayadhar cotton lint docras loaded in lorry were burnt causing damage of Rs. 52,904-35 due to short circuit on account of negligence in maintaining over-head electric wire lines across Shigli-Laxmesh- war road near Shigli toll naka ? 2. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest of Rs. 11,411-00 at the rate of 12% p. m. ?

( 5 ) WHAT amount plaintiff isentitled to recover? 5. All issues were found in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed as prayed. Therefore the present appeal.

( 6 ) WE do not propose to refer to the evidence led by the parties in the suit in the trial Court. Now before us, sri C. R. V. Swamy, learned Counsel for the appellant-Board has urged only three legal contentions on which the appeal should succeed of fail. Those contentions may be stated in the form of the following propositions :- (1) The plaintiff-respondent could not maintain the suit as admittedly he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document