<p>Dharwad: The Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited (Gescom) has agreed to provide Rs 40 lakh compensation to a nine-year-old boy who lost his right hand in an electric accident. The Karnataka High Court’s Dharwad Bench has settled the case through mutual consent.</p>.<p>The boy’s father had approached the court seeking compensation for medical expenses and damages due to the severe injuries sustained in the accident. The court had directed Gescom to cover the medical expenses and provide compensation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Challenging this order, Gescom had filed an appeal before the Dharwad Bench of the High Court. A division bench comprising Justices Ashok Kinagi and Umesh Adiga had advised both the parties to resolve the matter through settlement.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Following discussions in Gescom's board meeting, a decision was made to approve the compensation, considering the case as an exceptional one. However, the company clarified that this settlement would not be treated as a precedent for future cases, as per the official statement.</p>
<p>Dharwad: The Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited (Gescom) has agreed to provide Rs 40 lakh compensation to a nine-year-old boy who lost his right hand in an electric accident. The Karnataka High Court’s Dharwad Bench has settled the case through mutual consent.</p>.<p>The boy’s father had approached the court seeking compensation for medical expenses and damages due to the severe injuries sustained in the accident. The court had directed Gescom to cover the medical expenses and provide compensation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Challenging this order, Gescom had filed an appeal before the Dharwad Bench of the High Court. A division bench comprising Justices Ashok Kinagi and Umesh Adiga had advised both the parties to resolve the matter through settlement.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Following discussions in Gescom's board meeting, a decision was made to approve the compensation, considering the case as an exceptional one. However, the company clarified that this settlement would not be treated as a precedent for future cases, as per the official statement.</p>