Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6503
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO, MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH, JJ
Assistant Executive Engineer (A E E), Keb, Sira Sub Division (Rural) – Appellant
Versus
Yallamma, W/o Late Ravikiran – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2411 OF 2023 (RES)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. VENKATESH T S, ADVOCAT
Electricity suppliers are strictly and absolutely liable for damages caused by electrocution, regardless of negligence, as established in prior judgments.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections 80 and 92 - Law of Torts - Negligence and Strict Liability - Appeal against decree for compensation due to electrocution - Trial Court awarded Rs.20,00,000/- for damages and mental agony to the family of deceased - The court found that the death was caused by the negligence of the defendants in maintaining safety measures for live wires. The plaintiffs proved their case through witness testimonies and documentary evidence, including post-mortem reports. The defendants did not contest the suit, leading to an affirmative conclusion on liability. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Negligence - The court emphasized that the liability of electricity suppliers is absolute in cases of electrocution, irrespective of negligence, as established in prior judgments. The principle of strict liability applies, meaning that the defendants are liable for damages without the need to prove negligence. (Paras 7-8)
(C) Compensation - The court upheld the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court, considering the young age of the deceased and the financial dependency of the family. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit. (Paras 8)
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's decision to award compensation for the death caused by electrocution due to negligence.
Issues: The main issues included the determination of negligence by the defendants and the appropriateness of the compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendants' failure to ensure safety measures for live wires constituted negligence, leading to strict liability for the resulting death.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2023 in OS No.28/2020 filed by the respondents herein, which has been decreed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira (‘Trial Court’ for short), by stating in paragraph No.12 as under:
“12. Point No.3:- For the above-discussed reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs.
The plaintiffs are entitled for the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony due to the death of deceased Ravikiran as sought in the plaintiff with 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization.
The defendant No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally pay the compensation amount within 6 months from the date of this order.
CMO is directed to calculate the court fee and to collect the same after depositing of compensation amount.
Draw decree accordingly.”
2. Respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Ravikiran, respondent No.2 is his minor son and respondents No.3 and 4 are his parents. On 09.10.2018 at about 04:30 a.m., Late Ravikiran had told the family members that, he was going to farm. While going to his farm, he passed besides an electric pole, which was erected on his land. He came in contact with the pole and died on the spot because of electric shock. A criminal case was registered against the appellants herein.
3. It was the case of the respondents that, Ravikiran died due to complete carelessness and negligence on the part of the appellants. They had not taken any safety measures for live wires. The respondents were completely dependent upon Ravikiran for their livelihood. He was doing drip irrigation contract and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month during his lifetime. After his death, respondents have no source of livelihood.
4. On the receipt of the summons, the appellants had appeared before the Court, but had not filed their written statement. In fact, appellant No.2 was proceeded ex- parte.
5. The following points were framed by the Trial Court for its decision:
“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the death of deceased Ravikiran was caused due to negligent act of the defendant No.2?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought in the plaint?
3. What Order or Decree?”
6. On points No.1 and 2, the conclusion of the Trial Court was the following:
“10. POINT NO.1 & 2: These points are being interconnected, in order to avoid repetition of facts taken up for joint discussion.
In order to prove their case, the plaintiff No.4 examined herself as P.w.1 by way of filing affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and in her chief examination affidavit she has reiterated the plaint averments and got marked totally 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.9. She further examined 2 more witnesses as P.w.2 and 3 who were said to be the witnessed the tragic death of deceased Ravikiran who was electrocuted and died at the spot and if we go through the documents Ex.P.1 the same is the certified copy of UDR report it reflects that at about 4.30 p.m. her son left the home to attend the agricultural work and at about 6.00 p.m. they came to know about the death of her son through one Hemanth and Thoufik due to electrocution his son was died and she rushed to the spot and found her son dead in their land due to electrocution. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the complaint, Ex.P.3 is the inquest report, Ex.P.4 and 5 are the statement of the relatives of the deceased, Ex.P.6 is the P.M.Report of the deceased Ravikiran in which it has been clearly opined by the doctor who conducted P.M. of the deceased that the reason for the death is "Electrocution". Ex.P.7 is the charge sheet, Ex.P.8 and 9 are the postal receipt and acknowledgement.
11. Further the P.w.1 stated that due to the negligent Act of the defendants her son died due to electrocution as they have not taken safety measurement with respect to the electric pole erec
