KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. BASAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Karnataka electricity board who was the defendant No. 1 in o. s. No. 81 of 1993 on the file of the principal civil judge and additional chief judicial magistrate at bailahongal in the suit for claim of compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 for the physical disability injury sustained by the plaintiff due to negligent act of the electricity board and which suit has been decreed, has preferred the above regular first appeal questioning the correctness of the decree so passed.

(2.) THE claim of the plaintiff was that on 28. 8. 1992 while she was returning after performing amavasya pooja to her borewell situated in the land r. s. No. 137 of pattihal k. b. village at about 3 p. m. , a live electric wire fell on her left shoulder resulting in the shock on her body and burning injuries to her shoulder. She fell down unconscious, she was taken to government hospital, belgaum, where her right hand elbow was amputated, three fingers of the left hand also amputated. She was pregnant at that time and she gave birth to a premature male child, which died immediately after such premature delivery. Later she was shifted to the wanless hospital, miraj, wherein plastic surgery was made to her left side face and entire left leg. During the course of her treatment, her brother-in- law and her mother were attending her and or her medical treatment an amount of Rs. 80,000 was spent. Due to burn injuries sustained, she has become ugly looking and due to amputation of right hand and fingers, she is not able to attend to her own physical requirement. She has to depend on others, for taking food, bath and to answer the nature calls and she was not able to perform her marital duties and her husband discarded her. It was further averred in the plaint that on the previous date of accident, the people working in the land by the side of transformer saw sparking in the lines and one malleshappa naiker and basavanni jainer informed the danger of electricity to the Section officer, k. e. b. , belvadi. The electric line from that transformer is connected to the borewell situated at r. s. No. 137 of plaintiff's husband. Despite information given to the Section officer, belvadi, the danger was not set right. The plaintiff without knowing and premonition that she would be entrapped by the snapping of electric wire, had gone to the borewell for doing pooja as usual as she was doing it on every amavasya day. The plaintiff gave birth to a daughter who was aged about 4 years at the time of accident. Her husband desirous to have a male child. Due to the premature delivery and consequent death of the male child her husband got frustrated and sent her back to her parents' house and he is not ready to look after her and maintain her. Due to this electric accident she has lost all her charm due to burn injuries sustained. Therefore, the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 1,80,000 as compensation from k. e. b.

(3.) DENYING the information of sparking in the transformer by the neighbouring landowners on 27. 8. 1992, defendant No. 1 further contended that they have visited the spot and noticed the live wire hanging at a height of 4-5 ft. Above the ground level. On enquiry, they had found that on 27. 8. 1992 plaintiff herself had noticed the sparking near the transformer and hanging wire below the normal level, she informed it to her husband and basavaneppa jainer, who in turn without informing the k. e. b. themselves operated the transformer to stop the flow of the electricity. Instead of stopping they made it to flow the electricity on the line, and thereby responsible for the injury sustained by the plaintiff. It was admitted that if the fact of sparking near the transformer was brought to the notice of k. e. b. , belvadi, well in time, the present accident could have been avoided. The plaintiff herself touched the hanging electric wire on the assurance of her husband and malleshappa jainer that they had stopped the flow of electricity in that wire. Therefore, it was due to negligence of the plaintiff herself the accident has occurred and the k. e. b. is not responsible to pay any compensation. Thus, the suit was resisted.