GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY Vs. MARIYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 of an original suit bearing O.S. No. 3/2005 which was pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Koppal, are before this Court challenging the judgment and decree insofar as it relates to mulcting of 75% of liability in regard to the death of the husband of plaintiff-respondent Mariyamma due to electrocution. The suit filed seeking compensation towards damages arising out of the death of plaintiffs husband-Hanumanthappa due to electrocution has been decreed in part assessing the liability of the appellants 1 and 2 at 75% and the liability of the deceased victim at 25%. Suit came to be decreed on 28.11.2007. Appeal filed under Section 96 in R.A. No. 28/2008 by defendants 1 and 2 has been dismissed on 15.09.2010. Concurrent findings are called in question by filing an appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

(2.) Hanumanthappa was the husband of first respondent Mariyamma. He had been engaged by the third defendant Dr. Sangamesh Kalhal, in connection with the construction of one of his buildings. While he was engaged in the construction activities of the house of Dr. Sangamesh, he died due to electrocution. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 had not taken proper care and caution in regard to the maintenance of live wire above the building and that the deceased Hanumanthappa, came in contact with the live wire and got electrocuted and ultimately he died. Plaintiff had filed a suit not only against the appellants who are responsible for maintaining the electric live wire but also the owner of the house who had engaged Hanumanthappa, in constructing the house.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 had specifically denied all the material averments and had called upon the plaintiff to prove the contents of the plaint and the basis for claiming Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation. According to defendants 1 and 2 Dr. Sangamesh Kalal, had not taken any permission to put up construction and that he was responsible for the death of Hanumanthappa, due to electrocution and that the electric wire line had been properly maintained by them. According to third defendant, defendants 1 and 2 had failed to perform their duty of removal of live wire passing upon his plot and in stead of that they had only put up a plastic cover to the live wire and directed him to continue the work. Hence he had denied any liability.