##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 114767 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI. GUDADAPPA RUDRAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK.

2. SMT. RENUKA W/O GUDADAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BOTH ARE R/O:MARIHAL, TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE SECTION OFFICER, HESCOM, BALEKUNDRI KH SECTION, TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERING(ELE), RURAL SUB-DIVISION, HESCOM, NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A HESCOM, EURKA TOWER I B ROAD, Location: HIGH TAL: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

COURT OF …RESPONDENTS KARNATAKA (BY SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3;

NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING BY THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2015 AND AWARD DATED 21.05.2015, PASSED IN OP.NO.41/2013, PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND PLEASED AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

The captioned writ petition is directed against the award dated 20.05.2015 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in O.P. No.41/2013, whereby the claim petition filed by the parents of the deceased minor child seeking compensation for his death due to electrocution came to be rejected.

2. The undisputed facts disclose that on 11.09.2012, the deceased Ravi Talwar, a minor boy aged about 11 years, had gone to graze cattle behind Campbell Factory. While grazing the cattle, he noticed that a kite had become entangled in a high-tension electric line. In an attempt to retrieve the kite, the child approached the electric pole. The child came in contact with the live high-tension electric installation, sustained severe electric shock and died instantaneously.

3. A case came to be registered in O.D. Crime No.174/2012 by Marihal Police. After the incident, the petitioners issued a legal notice demanding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent-Electricity Supply Company. Since the respondents neither replied to the notice nor compensated the bereaved parents, they instituted proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat seeking damages.

4. The respondents contested the proceedings. The Permanent Lok Adalat, however, dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the deceased himself had climbed the electric pole in an attempt to retrieve the kite and therefore the accident occurred solely because of his own act. It is this finding which is assailed before this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

This Court has carefully examined the pleadings, the oral evidence and the material placed on record. The principal question that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat was justified in rejecting the claim by attributing negligence to an eleven-year-old child and in refusing to apply the doctrine of strict liability governing electrocution cases?”

FINDINGS ON POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

6. The spot inspection report prepared immediately after the incident clearly indicates that strands of hair and portions of skin of the deceased were found adhered to the electric pole, thereby conclusively establishing that the child came in contact with a live electric installation. The Inspector’s report also indicates that the child had climbed the pole and came in contact with the energized high-tension wire.

7. Therefore, the factual controversy as to whether the child merely touched the pole or had climbed the pole loses significance. The fundamental and undisputed fact remains that the child died because he came into contact with a live high- voltage