UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED vs PINKI BALKRISHNA @ BALKRISHAN PATEL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
Versus
PINKI BALKRISHNA @ BALKRISHAN PATEL & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MS. RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
ABATED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MS. ZEEL RAVAL for MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the
Defendant(s) No. 3,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 25/06/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of filing present First Appeal u/s 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”), the appellant
– Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (in short “UGVCL”) challenges
judgment and decree dated 17.07.2010 passed by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol, whereby the learned trial
Court has decreed the Special Civil Suit No.197 of 2001 and
directed the UGVCL to pay Rs.9,56,360/- with interest at the
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 17:04:35 IST 2026
C/FA/1/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till
realization.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are
referred to as per their original status before the learned trial
Court.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, Balkrishna
Patel, a 22 year old was employed as an Apprentice Line-man for
the defendant UGVCL Co..
3.1 On October 23, 2000, acting on instructions from a
superior officer and a Helper named Himmat Purshottam
Vanker, the deceased was sent to resolve a phase fault at a
distribution pole situated in front of Mahesh Industries at Kalol.
While attempting to rectify the complaint on the pole, he received
a severe electric shock that caused him to fall and sustained
fatal injuries.
3.2 That following the accident, the deceased was initially
taken to a hospital in Kalol and subsequently admitted to Civil
Hospital in Ahmedabad, where he succumbed to his injuries
during treatment on October 24, 2000. The incident was
reported to the Kalol Taluka Police Station on the day of the
accident, and an Inquest Panchnama was prepared at the
hospital.
3.3 Claiming the aforesaid incident as absolute
negligency on the part of the UGVCL, the plaintiffs have prayed
for compensation for her husband to the tune of Rs.11,95,000 /-
with interest.
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 17:04:35 IST 2026
C/FA/1/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
3.4 The defendant UGVCL having been served, appeared
through learned advocate and mainly submitted that the
incident took place due to sole negligency of the deceased. It is
the deceased, who was required to take necessary care to avoid
the mishap. Rest of the pleadings are also denied by the UGVCL .
3.5 The learned trial Court decreed the suit to the
aforesaid extent.
3.6 Being aggrieved, the UGVCL has preferred present
First Appeal.
4. Heard learned advocate Ms. R.V. Acharya appearing
for the appellants.
4.1 She submits that the deceased was an Apprentice of
the UGVCL. She would further submit that on the day of
incident, on instructions from the Helper – Himmatbhai Vankar,
he went to rectify the phase fault.
4.2 She would further submit that evidence suggest that
though he was working as a line-man, he was not a regular
worker and instead of using the ladder fitted in the jeep, he on
his own, climbed the electric pole and received the injury.
4.3 It was further submitted by learned advocate Ms.
R.V. Acharya that the evidence suggest that he was stopped from
climbing the pole and yet, ignoring the instructions, deceased
has climbed the electric pole and thereby, he received the electric
shock. Therefore, it is a self-inflicted injury of the deceased. The
UGVCL or the Himmatbhai – the Helper had no role to play in
remaining negligent for the unfortunate incident.
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 17:04:35 IST 2026
C/FA/1/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
4.4 She would submit that it is a clear case where
deceased was negligent and had he taken proper care, the
mishap would have been avoided and therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, she would submit that the learned
trial Court has committed serious error in deciding the issue of
negligence against the UGVCL. She would further submit that
the learned trial Court made proper calculation in grating
compensation and even the income of the deceased assessed by
the learned trial Court is on the higher side so also 6% interest
granted by the learned trial Court is on higher side. Upon above
submissions, she prays to allow this First Appeal.
5. As against the aforesaid submission, learned
advocate Ms. Zeel Raval appearing for learned advocate Mr.
Ankit Shah for the respondent Nos.3 to 4 – original plaintiffs,
submitted that the deceased was not a regular worker and he
was supposed to help the Helper in capacity of an Apprentice.
Yet, the Helper directed him to climb and repair the pole,
pursuant to which deceased climbed the pole and while he had
tried to repair the pole, was electrocuted and thereby, it is a
clear case of negligence on the part of the original defendants.
5.1 It was further submitted that there is no substance in
the appeal, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
5.2 She further submitted that a young boy of 21 years
leaving behind his widow and old aged parents, lost his life in
the electrocution, the learned trial Court valued the life of a
young boy of 22 years at a smaller amount of Rs.9,56,360/-, and
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 17:04:35 IST 2026
C/FA/1/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
therefore, even on a lenient approach, this Court may not
interfere with the impugned judgment.
5.3 She further submitted that the wires and the running
of electric energy in the wires was exclusively under the control
and management of employees of the defendant, and it was the
duty of the defendant to follow proper procedure to pass electric
current in the electric lines. She would further submit that it is
obligatory on the part of the UGVCL to take great care and
caution in laying, installing and maintaining overhead wires and
to provide safety measures. She would further submit that the
death of the deceased occurred on account of negligence and
willful default on the part of the employee of the electricity
company and therefore, the learned trial Court has given just
and fair compensation and hence, no interference is called for.
Upon above submission, learned advocate for the respondents –
plaintiffs prays to dismiss the First Appeal.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court
has been called to decide as to whether the deceased was
negligent and due to his negligency, the incident occurred? The
learned trial Court framed following issues at Exh.16:-
“1 ) Whether the plaintiff is proved that the deceased is
working as a Apprentice in defendant board and that
relevant time and during the time of receive Electric
Shock and for that the defendant is negligence and
deceased has received the Electric shock and therefore
death has been occurred?
(2) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the Suit?
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 17:04:35 IST 2026
C/FA/1/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief which
he prayed?
(4) What order and decree?”
7. Issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered in affirmative and
issue No.4 is answered as per final order.
8. Two aspects are important, firstly the Principle of
Strict Liability, which applies in the present case. There is no
space for the submission of self-inflicted injury. No prudent man
will die on its own except in a case to commit suicide. It is not a
case of the UGVCL that he has committed suicide and met with
his death. It is again an established position that the deceased
was an Apprentice and the Helper told him to correct the fault.
Secondly, it was a duty of the Helper to correct the
phase fault, but instead he directed the deceased to correct the
fault and following his direction, since deceased was assigned to
correct the fault, he received the electric shock when he was
climbing on the pole. These facts in itself are sufficient to say
that the UGVCL and Helper are negligent to cause the incident.
9. In this factual background, if we refer the judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M.C. Mehta v/s. Union of
India [AIR 1987 SC 1086 ], whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court
extended principles of strict liability involved in case of Rylands
v. Fletcher, 1868 3 HL 330 and held it to be absolute liability. In
that case, claim for compensation was sought on behalf of
persons who had suffered consequent to escape of oleum gas
from the units of Sriram Foods & Fertilizers Industries. The
Honble Apex Court has laid down the law as regards
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 17:04:35 IST 2026
C/FA/1/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
consequences of accidents where inherently dangerous activities
are carried on, which reads as under:-
“The principle of absolute liability was laid down
whereby liability was made absolute i.e., strict liability
sans defences. The observations of the Apex Court at
Para 31 is self-explanatory and reads as follows: "....We
would therefore hold that where an enterprise is engaged
in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and
harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the
operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the
enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate
all those who are affected by the accident and such
liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which
operate vis-avis the tortious principle of strict liability
under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher."
10. In H.S.E.B. v/s. Ram Nath [2004 (5) SCC 793] , the
Honble Apex Court again reiterated extension of principle of
absolute liability in case where liability was sought to be
disowned by the Power Supply Company by contending that the
unauthorized structure near the electric line hand contributed to
the accident. In para 6, the Honble Apex Court held as under:-
"6. The appellants are carrying on a business which is
inherently dangerous. If a person were to come into
contact with a high-tension wire, he is bound to receive
serious injury and/or die. As they are carrying on a
business which is inherently dangerous, the appellants
would have to ensure that no injury results from their
activities. If they find that unauthorised constructions
have been put up close to their wires it is their duty to
ensure that that (2004) 5 SCC 793 construction is got
demolished by moving the appropriate authorities and if
necessary, by moving a court of law. Otherwise, they
would take the consequences of their inaction. If there are
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 17:04:35 IST 2026
C/FA/1/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
complaints that these wires are drooping and almost
touching houses, they have to ensure that the required
distance is kept between the houses and the wires, even
though the houses be unauthorised. In this case we do
not find any disputed question of fact."
11. Recently, this Court in case of P.G.V.C.L. v/s. Heirs
of Chandrikaben Harpalsinh [AIR 2017 Gujarat 177],
discussed the issue relying upon the judgment in case of M.P.
Electricity Board v. Shailkumar and Ors., reported in (2002)
2 SCC 162 in para 6, observed thus:-
“6. The submissions have been made by learned
Advocate Shri S.P. Hasurkar referring to the judgment of
both the courts below and also the material and evidence
particularly Exh.35 to support his contention about the
negligence.
Therefore, the moot question is whether any negligence
could be attributed to the deceased and whether any
such contentions could be entertained to avoid the
liability for the incident and the compensation as a result
thereof. The aspect of negligence has been considered by
both the courts below. Though the submissions have been
made by learned Advocate Shri S.P.Hasurkar that from
the pole the wire was brought to the premises which was
passing from a pipe to the meter and that the pipe was
fitted with the angle. Therefore the wire for spreading the
clothes could not have been fitted with the angle and
therefore it is the negligence of the consumer, is throughly
misconceived. The installation and maintenance is the
responsibility and obligation of the licensee like the
Appellants herein. When the line is taken from the pole
right up to the premises, it is their obligation to see that it
is in such a manner covered and the wire is fitted with
the pipe that it does not result in any accident and it is
safe. These precautions are required to be taken by the
supplier as they have installed the line and they have to
maintain the line. There is a periodical supervision and
when there is a checking for Regular Civil Appeal No.
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 17:04:35 IST 2026
C/FA/1/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
15/2017 Page 19 the meter, the representative would
also visit the premises. Therefore the submission that
because the wire for spreading the clothes was attached
to the angle, it was the main cause for the accident and
attributed the negligence to the consumer, is
misconceived. The trial court has referred to and relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
M.P. Electricity Board v. Shailkumar and Ors.,
reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 and made the
observations which has been quoted referring to the
"principal of strict liability". The concept of strict liability
assumes its different dimension that the liability is strict
once the accident has occurred and in any case the onus
is on the licensee who is obliged to take precaution at the
time of installation and maintenance of line to see that no
accident occurs or the chances are minimized. Therefore
the submissions which have been made referring to the
aspect of negligence has a reference to the negligence in
Law of Torts where a person could show that reasonable
precautions were taken. However, once the "principal of
strict liability" is attributed, the liability would be incurred
irrespective of the fact that whether the precautions were
taken or not. It is in these circumstances, the concurrent
findings of facts arrived at by both the courts below
cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. The
substantial questions of law posed as stated above are
only referring to the aspect of Regular Civil Appeal No.
15/2017 Page 20 appreciation of evidence. The first
question refers to the statutory provision in regard to
liability of accident which again is vague as there are
specific rules qua the Electricity Supply Rules and the
Electricity Supply Code, which again referred to the
statutory provisions and the obligation of the licensee to
take precaution for installation and maintenance of such
line. The reference and reliance on Exh. 35 would not
justify any such submission which are sought to be made
by learned Advocate Shri S.P. Hasurkar for the
Appellants. Therefore it can hardly be said that there is
any substantial question of law is involved.”
12. One more judgment which is pressed into service is
in case of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited Thru Deputy
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 17:04:35 IST 2026
C/FA/1/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
Engineer Versus L/h Of Deceaed Jignesh Jamanbhai Gohil,
2024 (0) JX(Guj) 898.
13. There is no cavil that the appellant is engaged in the
business of selling hazardous product viz. Electricity. It is the
liability of the appellant – UGVCL to maintain all the wires to
have insulated them to prevent the incident. If any incident
occurs, the principle of absolute liability shall be attracted.
Thus, without touching the merits of the case considering the
fact that the UGVCL is engaged in selling the hazardous
substance, is required to pay compensation for death of the
deceased applying the principles of strict and absolute liability.
14. Apt to note that if energy so transmitted through
electricity line causes injury or death of a human being, who
unknowingly come in contact with it, then it is primary liability
of the Electricity Company to compensate the sufferer in view of
principle of absolute liability. Electricity transmitted through the
wires has potentiality of dangerous dimension. To add, it is the
duty upon the Electricity Company to take all safety measures to
prevent escape of such electricity or to see that such wire does
not expose risk to human being. If undertaking like present
appellant - UGVCL involved in the activity of supplying of
electricity is undoubtedly involving in hazardous or risky
exposure to human life, Law of torts, therefore, recognizes them
to be liable for injury suffered by any other person, irrespective
of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the Electricity
Company. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk
inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on
such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". Concept of
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 17:04:35 IST 2026
C/FA/1/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
strict liability or absolute liability differs from concept of fault
liability which arises on account of negligence or fault in this
way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the
foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable
precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for
avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is
based on fault liability. However, such is not consideration or
relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held
liable regardless of whether he could have avoided the particular
harm by taking precautions.
15. In view of above and in extenso of principles of strict
liability or absolute liability, the UGVCL would not be at privilege
to claim negligence of the deceased. Thus, the present First
Appeal requires fate of only dismissal.
16. Resultantly, present First Appeal fails and stands
dismissed.
17. Consequently, CA, if any, does not survive and
stands disposed of accordingly.
18. If any amount is deposited with the learned trial
Court, the same shall be disbursed to the plaintiffs along with
interest accrued thereon.
19. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any,
to the concerned Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 17:04:35 IST 2026