- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100469 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE SECTION OFFICER HESCOM DIVISION, HALGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O AND M DIVISION-2 (ELECTICAL), HESCOM, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O AND M DIVISION-2 (ELECTRICAL), HESCOM, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110. 4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR ADMIN AND M.S.A./TECHNICAL, HESCOM NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580007. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: YUVARAJ S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA BALLARI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.326/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DAMAGES. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.09 12:02:24 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.326/2018 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ranabennur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this Regular First Appeal, are as follows: 4. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.135/2 measuring 5 acres 20 guntas situated at Nukapur village of Ranebennur Taluk. The said land is irrigated land. The plaintiff is growing commercial crop of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 sugarcane, and on the boundaries of the land, he had planted more than 50 coconut trees. On 17.12.2017 at about 3.00 p.m., the transformer’s spark and lit fire to the standing sugarcane crop as well as the coconut trees. The entire sugarcane crop and all the coconut trees were burnt. In this regard, a complaint has been lodged before the Ranebennur Rural Police Station, and a case was registered in A.F.No.9/2017. The incident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the officials of the defendants, and the plaintiff has sustained loss of Rs.15,00,000/- and for the purposes of payment of court fee the compensation was restricted to Rs.12,00,000/-. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to compensate the plaintiff by paying the amount. The defendants neither replied to the legal notice nor paid the damages. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for damages. 5. After the service of summons defendants no. 1 to 4 have appeared their counsel and the written statement - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 filed by defendant no. 4 was adopted by the other defendants. 6. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and also regarding the extent of property and growing up of commercial crops, coconut trees, etc. It is denied that the incident took place due to the negligence on the part of the officials of the defendants. It is contended that the plaintiff tried to loosen the wire fixed to the transformer and said incident occurred. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues as follows: 1) Whether the plaintiff prove the due to the negligence of defendant the transformer at Nokapur village near Re.Sy.No.135/2 has got burnt? 2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that this burning of the transformer has burnt the standing sugarcane crop and coconut trees situated in Re.Sy.No.135/2 of Nokapur village? 3) Whether the plaintiff proves that due to burning of above said crop and coconut trees loss of Rs.12,00,000/- is caused to him? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for compensation, if so, at what rate of interest? 5) What decree or order? 8. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1, examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, and marked 31 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P31. In rebuttal, the officer of the defendants was examined as D.W.1, and no documents are marked. 9. The trial court, after hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative, issue No.3 partly in the affirmative and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed with costs. It is held that defendant Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.11,59,375/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of the suit till its realisation, and the defendants were directed to tender the decretal amount within one month from the date of the judgment. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 10. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.326/2018, filed this Regular First Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants, and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants submit that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties, and committed an error in awarding the compensation. He submits that the compensation awarded by the trial court is exorbitant. He also submits that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff, as he has grown the sugarcane crop below the electrical transformer and the electrical wire, installed by the defendants. Hence, he submits that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal by dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned judgment and the decree passed by the trial court. He submits that D.W.1 in the cross- examination has admitted that on 17.12.2012 due to the spark from the transformer, the crops of the plaintiff were burnt, and a complaint was lodged before the police. He also admitted that the Assistant Director of Agriculture has also issued the report regarding the yield of the land of the plaintiff. He submits that the trial court considering the evidence on record has rightly decreed the suit. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The points, that would arise for my consideration, are as follows; 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that due to the negligence of the defendants the transformer at Nukapur village near Sy.No.135/2 has got burnt and the sugarcane crop and coconut trees of the plaintiff - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 were burnt and loss of Rs.12,00,000/- is caused to the plaintiff? 2) Whether the defendants prove that the judgment and the decree passed by the trial court is arbitrary and erroneous? 3) What order or decree? Point No.1. 16. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the defendants contending that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.135/2. The said land is irrigated land, and the plaintiff was growing sugarcane and coconut trees. On 17.12.2017 at about 3.00 p.m., the transformer sparks and lit fire to the standing sugarcane crop as well as the coconut trees. The entire sugarcane and all the coconut trees were burnt. A complaint was lodged before the Ranebennur Rural Police Station. The electrical incident occurred due to the negligence of the officials of the defendants. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice calling upon the defendants to pay the damages. The defendants neither replied to the legal notice nor paid the damages. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 The plaintiff to substantiate his case examined himself as P.W.1, and produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the copy of the complaint submitted by the police to the Tahasildar. Ex.P2 is copy of the complaint. Ex.P3 is the acknowledgment. Ex.P4 is the spot panchanama. Ex.P5 is the statement of one Koteppa. Ex.P6 is the statement of Siddappa. Ex.P7 is the statement of Somavva. Ex.P8 is the certificate issued by District Fire Officer. Ex.P9 is the letter issued by the police to the Assistant Director. Ex.P10 is the reply given by the Assistant Director for agriculture to the police. Ex.P11 is the report given by the agriculture officers. Ex.P12 is the report given by the police. Ex.P13 is the RTC extract of Sy.No.135/2, which discloses that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the said land. Ex.P14 is the office copy of notice. Exs.P15 to 18 are the postal receipts. Exs.P19 to 21 are the postal acknowledgments, which discloses that legal notices were duly served on the defendants. Ex.P22 is the letter of Public Information Officer. Ex.P23 is the copy of the report. Exs.P24 and 25 are the photos. Ex.P26 is the crop - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 certificate. Exs.P27 to 31 are the photos. Exs.P27(a) to 31(a) are CD’s. 17. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the land bearing Sy.No.135/2 measuring 5 acres 20 gutnas, and the plaintiff was growing commercial crops like, sugarcane and coconut trees. Plaintiff also examined the Assistant Director of Agriculture as P.W.2. He has issued Ex.P11 to ascertain the damages caused to the crops. Plaintiff also examined P.W.3, who deposed regarding damages, and also the receipts of coconut as well as sugarcane. In rebuttal, defendant No.4 was examined as D.W.1, and he reiterated the written statement averments in his examination-in- chief, and no documents were produced. In the cross- examination, it was elicited that, as of the date of the incident, he was not the Section Officer, whereas one M.M.Mulla is the HESCOM Section Officer. D.W.1 admits that it is the duty of the HESCOM officials to maintain all the electric wires as well as the transformers. He admits that on 17.12.2017 due to the spark from the said transformer, the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 crop of the plaintiff was burnt, and a complaint was lodged before the police. 18. The perusal of the entire evidemce ofn record discloses that the plaintiff has sustained loss due to the negligence of the officials of the defendants in maintaining the electric transformer. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and D.W.1, there is no dispute about the ownership of the plaintiff over the land bearing Sy.No.135/2. It is also not in dispute that the commercial crops like, sugarcane and coconut trees were burnt due to the spark in the transformer. As a result, the plaintiff has sustained loss to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/-. Further, a criminal case was registered against the officials of the defendants. The trial court considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, Exs.P11 and 12, has recorded a finding that due to negligence on the part of the officials of the defendants, transformer was sparked, and damages has been caused to the crops of the plaintiff. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative holding that the plaintiff is the owner - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 of the land bearing Sy.No.135/2 measuring 5 acres 20 guntas, and due to the electrical spark in the transformer, the standing crop of the plaintiff was burnt. The plaintiff is entitled for damages to the loss caused to his crops. Point No.2. 19. The trial court considering the entire evidence on record has rightly decreed the suit. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and decree, and concur with the finding recorded by the trial court. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.2 in the negative. Point No.3. 20. In view of answering point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, I proceed to pass the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11176 RFA No. 100469 of 2019 ORDER i) The Regular First Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 25.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.326/2018 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ranabennur, is hereby confirmed. iii) No order as to the costs. iv) The trial court records shall be transmitted to the trial court, forthwith. v) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IA’s, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18