SRINIVASAMURTHY Vs. CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition by persons who are agitating for grant of compensation due to the death of their kin, who according to the petitioners, had died because of electrocution i. e. a high tension power line which is drawn and maintained by the second respondent -BESCOM - snapped and fell on the ground and person came in contact with the barbed wire fence on which the power line had fallen, through which electricity was conducted electrocuting, resulting in the death of the person.

(2.) THE version of the petitioners is that they sought for a compensation of Rs. 10. 00 lakh before the first respondent -Karnataka Electricity Regulation Commission, bangalore - a statutory commission constituted under the provisions of Kamataka Electricity reforms Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999)and continued under the proviso to Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, the Act), by filing a petition under section 67 (4) of the Act. That petition having been dismissed on the preliminary objection raised by the second respondent licencee within the meaning of this phrase under Section 2 (39) read with Section 14 of the Act, the present writ petition, questioning the impugned order dated 17-8-2006 (copy at Annexure-G to the writ petition)passed by the first respondent-commission.

(3.) SUBMISSION of Sri Giridhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, though are several, is mainly confined to the aspect that the commission is wrong in taking the view that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim of this nature; that it is the duty of the Commission to determine the compensation, as provided under sub-section (3) of section 67 of the Act and therefore the commission has declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and the commission should be directed to perform its functions in terms of the provisions of under sub-section (4) of Section 67 of the Act.