1/24 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI [CASE NUMBER] c/w W.P.No.55503/2015, W.P.Nos.50150/2015 & 12951/2016, [CASE NUMBER] & [CASE NUMBER] (GM-KEB) IN [CASE NUMBER] BETWEEN: 1. SRI. P. MALAPPA S/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH AGE 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.48 VIDYANAGAR, DASARAHALLI POST BENGALURU - 560057. 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.63 1ST CROSS, NANJAPPA BUILDING OPP OLD CMC, DASARAHALLI POST BENGALURU - 560057. 3. SMT. MALA W/O MUNICHINNAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT BEERAIAHNAPALYA KANASAVADI HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT - 561203. 4. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT TOTAGERE Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others 2/24 HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 562123. 5. MALAMMA W/O SRI LATE MALAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.48, VIDYANAGAR DASARAHALLI POST BANGALORE - 560057. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. TANVEER AHMED SHARIFF, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM), K R CIRCLE BENGALURU. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL ) NO.4, SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM PEENYA, BENGALURU - 560058. 3. M/S D.S. MAX PROPERTIES A REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1854, 17TH MAIN 3RD 'B' CROSS, HBR LAYOUT 1ST STAGE, 5TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 560043 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJ, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. LINGARAJ S. NADAGOUDA & SRI. R.G. NAGARAJA, ADV., FOR R3 (ABSENT THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER [SECTION] & [SECTION] OF THE [ACT], PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY TO PAY THE Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others 3/24 PETITIONER AS SUM OF RS.20,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 18% PER ANNUM TOWARDS COMPENSATION FOR LOSS, INJURY AND DAMAGES SUFFERRED AS PER ANNEXURE-M & ETC., IN W.P.No.55503/2015 BETWEEN: SRI. D. KUMAR S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. NEELASANDRA ANKANAHALLI, GAVIMATHA POST HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK-572121 TUMKUR DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADV., (ABSENT AND: 1. THE BRANCH OFFICER KEB OFFICE, HULIYURU DURGA KUNIGAL TALUK-572121 TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TUMKUR DIVISIN, TUMKUR-572102. 3. THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS NO.9/2, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 4. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009. 5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others 4/24 DEPARTMENT OF POWER BANGALORE-01. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. [ENTITY], ADV., FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER [SECTION] & [SECTION] OF THE [ACT], PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COMPENSATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FOR INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE [ACT]., IN [CASE NUMBER] BETWEEN: 1. [ENTITY] .T W/O. LATE [ENTITY] AGED 48 YEARS. 2. [ENTITY] D/O. LATE [ENTITY] .Y AGED 22 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/O NO.2, KAGGALIPURA BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT- 560062. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. [ENTITY], ADV., (ABSENT AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF POWER SUPPLY AND ENERGY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001 REPT. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER BESCOM, CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE 560001. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM, KATTRIGUPPE BANGALORE-560085. Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others 5/24 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER BESCOM, KATTRIGUPPE BANGALORE-560085. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. [ENTITY], AGA FOR R1 SRI. [ENTITY], ADV., FOR R2 TO R4) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER [SECTION] & [SECTION] OF THE [ACT], PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE ADEQUATE COMPENSATION TO COMPENSATE THE DEATH OF THE [ENTITY], WHO IS NONE OTHER THAN THE HUSBAND OF THE P-1 AND THE FATHER OF THE P-2 & ETC., IN [CASE NUMBER] BETWEEN: 1. SRI. [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI [ENTITY]. 2. [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O SRI. [ENTITY]. 3. MS. [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS D/O SRI. [ENTITY]. ALL ARE R/AT NO.161, TRICHY MAIN ROAD DAOLAGA PATTY, SALEM-636 006 [ENTITY]. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. [ENTITY], ADV., FOR SRI. [ENTITY], ADV.,) AND: 1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others 6/24 BESCOM, 27TH MAIN, 23RD CROSS B.S.K. SECOND STAGE BENGALURU-560 070. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER S-4 SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM B.D.A. COMLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034. 3. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR BENGALURU SOUTH, NO.84 BESCOM, I-FLOOR, R.V.ROAD OPP. TO TEAHERS COLLEGE BUS STOP BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004. 4. THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM) CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-09 BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 5. THE COMMISSIONER [ENTITY]. 6. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, SECOND BLOCK 9TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011. 7. M/S. SEA PEARL HOTEL NO.62, 1ST CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR MADIWALA, BENGALURU-560 068 BY ITS MANAGER/PROPRIETOR. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. [ENTITY], ADV., FOR R1-R4) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER [SECTION] & [SECTION] OF THE [ACT], PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO PAY COMEPNSATION OF RUPEES ONE CRORE TO PETITIONERS FOR THE FATAL DEATH OF THE ONLY SON OF PETITIONERS-1 AND 2 BY ELECTROCUTION ON ACCOUNT OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF RESPONDENTS & ETC., Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others 7/24 IN [CASE NUMBER] BETWEEN: 1. SRI. [ENTITY] S/O [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. [ENTITY] W/O [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SANDHALLI VILLAGE & POST CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573116. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. [ENTITY], ADV., (ABSENT AND: 1. THE [ENTITY]. 2. THE [ENTITY]. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. [ENTITY], ADV., FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER [SECTION] & [SECTION] OF THE [ACT] PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.5,00,000/- WITH INTEREST & ETC., THESE W.Ps' COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others 8/24 ORDER
Mr.[ENTITY] & Mr.[ENTITY], Advs. for Petitioners Mr.[ENTITY], AGA for State Mr.[ENTITY], Adv. for BESCOM Mr.[ENTITY], Adv. for CHESCOM
1. In all these cases, the question of maintainability of the writ petitions under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for claiming compensation in the cases of death or injury caused by the electrocution arises?
2. The learned counsels for the petitioners relying upon certain judgments before this Court has sought to submit that the Court can grant compensation in writ jurisdiction in cases of death or injury, particularly where the tortuious liability is admitted by the Respondent-Electricity Distribution Companies like BESCOM, KPTCL etc.,
3. On the other hand, the objection about the maintainability of the writ petitions was raised by the Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others learned counsels appearing for the Respondents-
Electricity Distribution Companies. Both the sides relied upon the judgments to support their rival contentions.
4. On the one hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) [PRECEDENT],
(ii) [PRECEDENT] decided on 14.10.2011), and
(iii) [PRECEDENT]
5. On the other hand, the Respondents have relied upon the following decisions in support of their contentions:-
(i) [PRECEDENT] Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others
(ii) [PRECEDENT],
(iii) [PRECEDENT], and
(iv) Mrs.Ashwini Manoj [ENTITY] & Others vs. BESCOM, Bangalore, & Others (2016(5) Kar.L.J. 511.
6. The latest decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Mrs.A.M.[ENTITY] & Others vs. BESCOM (supra), discussing the previous decisions cited at the bar has held that the filing of civil suit is the appropriate remedy in such cases and as such, the compensation cannot be determined and awarded in writ jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
The relevant paragraphs 9 to 11 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference:-
Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others "9. Of course there is no issue with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [ENTITY] and Others (supra), [ENTITY] (Smt) [ENTITY] (supra) and Union Carbide Corporation and Others (supra) that monitory compensation can be granted for contravention of fundamental rights as there is, indeed, a distinction between the remedy available in 'public law' and the remedy available in 'private law'. The remedy available in 'public law' is distinct from and in addition to the remedy available in 'private law' for damages.
Furthermore, if the facts are indisputable, the petitioners would be justified in seeking compensation by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
10. However, the moot issue before this court is, whether the facts regarding the cause of death of Mr. [ENTITY] are indisputable or not? Although Mr.[ENTITY], the learned Senior Counsel, would like this court to believe that the facts are indisputable, but, the documents submitted by the petitioners themselves envelop the issue of cause of death in Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others a shroud of mystery. Firstly, the two injuries revealed in the Post-Mortem Report prima-facie do not point to electrocution. Secondly, even the Doctors who conducted the Post-Mortem, even they were unsure as to the cause of death. Thus, the experts themselves were hesitant to pin-point the cause of death till the Histopathology report was received. Thirdly, even the Histopathology report claims that the possibility of electrocution can be considered. But, it does not specifically speak of electrocution as the cause of death. Fourthly, neither the report of the Electrical Inspectorate, nor the report of the Assistant Engineer, nor the statement of the Junior Engineer recorded by the police revealed that there was a leakage of electric current in the steel fence surrounding the transformer. According to the two reports and the statement of the Junior Engineer there was no leakage of electricity in the installation, or in the HT cable, LT Feeder, Filler and the LT Cable on the date of accident. Therefore, these reports further create a doubt about the cause of Mr. [ENTITY]'s death. Therefore, what is the plausible cause of his death is riddled with doubts.
Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others
11. These doubts can be cleared by the petitioners only by filing a civil suit for damages, where they would have ample opportunities for submitting oral and documentary evidence to establish that Mr. [ENTITY] died due to electrocution. However, the complicated issue of the cause of his death cannot be decided by this court in a writ jurisdiction. Although the writ jurisdiction is meant to protect the civil and fundamental rights of the people, but the said jurisdiction should not be invoked by this court when disputed question of facts, which require oral and documentary evidence, are raised. Since the present case involves disputed question of facts, this court is not inclined to invoke its writ jurisdiction".
7. On the other hand, in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] have upheld the compensation awarded by the High Courts in such cases in some cases under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others
8. In the order passed by one of the learned Single Judge of this Court in [PRECEDENT], the learned Single Judge even held, in a case of theft of electricity by the deceased and family members, that it was the duty of the Respondent-
BESCOM to take action against such illegal theft of electricity and applying the principle of strict liability, the learned Single Judge adopting the principles of awarding compensation in the cases of motor vehicle accidents, granted the compensation in the cases of electrocution.
The relevant paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said order are quoted below for ready reference:-
"5. It is a common place that whenever public celebrations are done, the persons who organizes such public celebrations would freely without any inhibition draw power from supply lines. The electricity authorities keep themselves deliberately blinded and they do not take any action against such illegal theft of electricity. The electricity Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others company in this case has not taken any proper preventive action to prevent theft of electricity to be used freely without any proper precaution to prevent risk of public danger. In that view of the matter, the respondents 1 and 2 would be very much liable under the principle of strict liability enunciated in Paramjit Kaur and others - vs- State of Punjab and others reported in 2010 ACJ
957. The plea is that the respondents are also liable for negligent maintenance in supply of power. The contention that there was proper diligence and care taken on the part of respondent No.1 and 2 is not tenable and they cannot avoid liability in case of "strict liability".
In that view of the matter, the respondents 1 & 2 cannot avoid liability to pay the compensation.
6. The contention that the case involves investigation into complicated questions of facts. The writ petitions are not maintainable is untenable. The documentary evidence produced ex-facie discloses that [ENTITY] died on account of electrocution and that the respondents 1 & 2 would be very much liable to pay the compensation on the principle of strict liability. With regard to quantum of compensation, the law is well settled. In the case of motor vehicles accidents, the Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others multiplier system is adopted. The said method is a full proof system for assessing the damages. In that view of the matter, the multiplier system if adopted, it does not offer any difficulty for the Court to assess the compensation in the present case.
7. The deceased is said to be an agriculturist. In the absence of credible proof of income, the income be assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month. 1/3rd be deducted towards personal expenses. Rs.2,000/- would enure to the benefit of the dependants. The deceased is aged about 38 years and therefore, '14' multiplier will apply. The total loss of dependency would be Rs.2,000/- (12 X 14 = Rs.3,36,000/-) towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the wife, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to parents, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all entitled to compensation of Rs.4,21,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment. Out of the compensation amount awarded, 2/3rd of the compensation will be paid to the first petitioner and 1/3rd of the compensation will be paid to the second petitioner".
Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others
9. The learned counsel for the Respondents-
companies were unable to point out whether any Intra-
Court Appeal was preferred against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge or not and whether the said judgment holds the field even now.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even the compensation awarded in that cases stood paid to the petitioners.
11. In the circumstances narrated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT], for not only determining the question of facts like the cause of accident, negligence of Electricity Distribution Companies or not, but on the other hand also, which criteria is to be adopted for determining the amount of compensation is also a material question.
Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others
12. The decisions cited at the bar do not appear to have referred to the provisions of the [ACT], which actually covers the field of such cases of accidents and cause of death, where on the basis of tortuious liability can be fixed on the Respondents-
Electricity Distribution Companies.
13. The preamble of the said Act is that, it is an Act to provide compensation to families for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by actionable wrong. It is a 4 Sections Act and including its preamble provides for the compensation where no action or suit is maintainable in any Court against a person who by his wrongful act, neglect or default, may have caused the death of another person. The relevant provisions of the said Act with its preamble are quoted below for ready reference:-
"THE [ACT] An Act to provide compensation to families for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by actionable wrong.
Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others Preamble.- WHEREAS no action or suit is now maintainable in any Court against a person who, by his wrongful act, neglect or default, may have caused the death of another person, and it is often- times right and expedient that the wrong- doer in such case should be answerable in damages for the injury so caused by him. It is enacted as follows:-
1. Short title and extent.- (1) This Act may be called the [ACT] .
(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir].
[1A.] Suit for compensation to the family of a person for loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong. Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony or other crime.
Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others [ ] Every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased;
and in every such action, the court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought, and the amount so recovered, after deducting all costs and expenses, including the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before mentioned parties, or any of them, in such shares as the court by its judgment or decree shall direct.
COMMENTS
(i) Under [SECTION] of the [ACT], compensation awarded for loss of dependency, worked out by applying the principle of multiplier is a part of damages "proportioned to the loss resulting from the death"; [PRECEDENT].
(ii) [SECTION] of the [ACT] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT] (Now see [ACT], Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others 1998), makes it obligatory on the tribunal to award "just compensation" which differs from case to case; [PRECEDENT].
(iii) The maintainability of the claim for damages on account of the agony suffered by wife cannot be claimed by the plaintiff in a representative capacity. As husband he can claim damages either under the [ACT] or under, the [ACT]; [PRECEDENT].
2. Not more than one suit to be brought. - Provided always that not more than one action or suit shall be brought for, and in respect of the same subject-matter of complaint 1[ ]:
Claim for loss to estate may be added: -
Provided that, in any such action or suit, the executor, administrator or representative of the deceased may insert a claim for and recover any pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased occasioned by such wrongful act, neglect or default, which sum, when recovered, shall be deemed part of the assets of the estate of the deceased.
3. Plaintiff shall deliver particulars, etc.- The plaint in any such action or suit shall Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others give a full particular of the person or persons for whom, or on whose behalf, such action or suit shall be brought, and of the nature of the claim in respect of which damages shall be sought to be recovered.
4. Interpretation- clause.- The following words and expressions are intended to have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, so far as such meanings are not excluded by the context or by the nature of the subject- matter; that is to say [ ] the word" person" shall apply to bodies politic and corporate; and the word "parent" shall include father and mother and grand- father and grand- mother; and the word "child" shall include son and daughter and grand- son and grand-daughter and step- son and step- daughter".
14. In view of this, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be not appropriate to invoke the writ jurisdiction in such cases and arbitrarily determine the compensation without any yardsticks or parameters.
Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others
15. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] was rendered in exercise of [SECTION] of the [ACT], which power this Court does not have and therefore, the said decision does not decide the question, whether the writ petition in such case is maintainable or not.
16. In the circumstances narrated above, this Court holds that these writ petitions are not maintainable under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and the claimants/petitioners should approach the Civil Courts by way of civil suits, where all these question of facts can be established with relevant evidence proved in accordance with law. The delay in filing such suits, even now, however deserves to be condoned, since the petitioners availed a remedy which Date of Order 16-10-2017 [CASE NUMBER] & Connected matters [PRECEDENT][ENTITY] & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others this Court at this stage is holding to be misconceived and not maintainable.
17. Therefore, the petitions are disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioners to file appropriate civil suits in competent civil courts and if such civil suits are filed within a period of 60 days from today, the Courts below, where such suits are filed are directed not to raise an objection of limitation in such cases but proceed to decide the suits on merits in accordance with law. No costs.
JUDGE Srl.