Back
Karnataka High Court Awards ₹10.52 Lakh To Parents Of Boy Electrocuted While Retrieving Kite
Trumps Child's 'Negligence' In Electrocution Death: Karnataka High Court Quashes Lok Adalat Order
In a significant ruling that reinforces the of electricity authorities to safeguard the public, the has awarded ₹10,52,800 in compensation to the parents of an 11-year-old boy who was electrocuted while attempting to retrieve a kite entangled in a high-tension line. The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum set aside a order of the , which had rejected the claim by attributing negligence to the child.
The Tragic Incident and Legal Battle
On , young Ravi Talwar had gone grazing cattle near the Campbell Factory in Marihal, Belagavi. Spotting a kite stuck on a high-tension electric line, the curious child climbed an electric pole to retrieve it. In the process, he came into contact with a live high-voltage installation and died instantly from electrocution. The spot inspection report later revealed strands of hair and skin adhered to the pole, confirming the fatal contact.
The parents, Gudadappa Rudrappa Talawar and Renuka Talawar, issued a legal notice to the demanding ₹10 lakh in compensation. When the company failed to respond, they approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, which dismissed their claim on the ground that the boy himself had climbed the pole and was thus negligent.
The Core Legal Question
The High Court framed a critical issue:
"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
governing electrocution cases?"
Court's Firm Rejection of Defence
Justice Magadum unequivocally held that the Lok Adalat's reasoning was "
." The court emphasized that electricity is an "
" and that those who transmit it owe an
"
"
to the public.
"Electricity is an . Unlike ordinary objects, electricity is invisible, silent and lethal. A person who undertakes the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity owes an to every member of the public who may come into its proximity."
The court rejected the argument that the child's voluntary act of climbing absolved HESCOM of liability. Citing the landmark judgment in , the bench noted that the applies regardless of whether negligence is proved. The supplier of electricity is liable simply because the activity is hazardous.
Children Cannot Be Expected to Act Like Prudent Adults
Addressing the Lok Adalat's finding of , the High Court observed that an 11-year-old child cannot be equated with an adult. Children are naturally curious and attracted to objects like kites and poles.
"An eleven-year-old child cannot be equated with a prudent adult. Children are naturally curious. They are attracted towards flying kites, trees, electric poles and other objects which adults may ordinarily avoid. Such conduct is entirely consistent with normal childhood behaviour."
The court noted that HESCOM was fully aware that high-tension lines pass through inhabited areas where children regularly play. The possibility of a child attempting to retrieve a kite was "neither remote nor extraordinary" and was "." Once foreseeable, the electricity authority was duty-bound to adopt protective measures such as fencing, anti-climbing devices, and warning systems.
"The respondents cannot legitimately contend that because the child climbed the pole, the entire responsibility shifts upon him. Acceptance of such an argument would virtually defeat the itself."
Compensation Calculated on Motor Vehicle Act Principles
Since the Lok Adalat had not assessed compensation, the High Court applied the used under the , drawing guidance from . The notional income was taken at ₹6,500 per month as per guidelines. Applying a multiplier of 18 and adding 50% for , the court arrived at ₹19,65,600. After deducting 50% for the deceased being a minor and adding ₹70,000 under , the total compensation came to ₹10,52,800 .
The Final Order
The High Court allowed the , set aside the Lok Adalat's award, and declared HESCOM liable on the principle of . The respondents were directed to pay the compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization, within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy.
The judgment serves as a strong reminder that electricity authorities cannot escape liability by blaming victims, especially children, and must ensure that their dangerous installations do not become death traps. It reaffirms that the duty to safeguard the public is absolute and .
