M.P. Electricity Board vs Smt. Anju Kori

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44575
1 FA-1378-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
th
ON THE 24 OF JUNE, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 1378 of 2018
M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD
Versus
SMT. ANJU KORI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pawan Kumar Singh Sengar- Advocate for respondents No. 1 to
4.
Shri Anmol Singh - Advocate for respondent No.5.
ORDER
The present appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has
been filed against the judgement and decree dated 20.03.2018 passed by the
trial Court whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit for compensation
filed by the respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs. By the aforesaid judgement and
decree, the trial Court has directed the present appellant as well as the
present respondent No.5, i.e. the defendants No.1 and 2 to pay the amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.4.45 Lakh to the plaintiffs jointly or
severally.
2. The plaintiffs are the wife and children of deceased Ram Sumiran
Kori, who expired in the intervening night of 17.11.2010 and 18.11.2010,
when he was going to his farm for guarding his rice crop. At that time, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
10:42:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44575
2 FA-1378-2018
defendant No.2 is alleged to have connected the electric wire from the

electricity supply line of Electricity Board i.e. the present appellant for his
own farm, which had been passing through the farm of the deceased. The
deceased is stated to have taken the farm on contract (Bataai) from one Ram
Mani and from the electricity pole, the wires were taken to the farm of
defendant No.2 through the farm of Ram Mani, which was taken on contract
by the deceased.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that it
is duly proved on record and in fact it is the case of the plaintiffs themselves
that the accident occurred on account of default of defendant No.2 in
illegally pulling electricity wire from the electricity pole and the accident
occurred in the dead of night. The Electricity Board even by applying
reasonable care and precaution in maintaining the lines and preventing the
theft. cannot be expected to patrol each and every line in the dead of night
and the accident having occurred in the dead of night from the illegal
electricity wire pulled by the defendant No.2, therefore the liability of the
defendant No.1 who is the present appellant has erroneously been saddled on
it.
4. Per contra, it is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the
plaintiffs that the trial Court has properly passed the impugned judgement
and decree and no cogent reasons have been made out in the present appeal
to interfere with the aforesaid well reasoned judgement and decree passed by
the trial Court which does complete justice between the parties.
5. Upon hearing the counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
10:42:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44575
3 FA-1378-2018
record, it is seen that in the present case it is the case of the plaintiffs that the

deceased was electrocuted by the electricity wires which were
illegally pulled by defendant No.2 from the electricity pole of defendant
No.1. The defendant No.1 is in appeal before this Court. The witness of
defendant No.1 before the trial Court namely Shri R. K. Jain appeared before
the trial Court as DW-1 and he stated in the para-3 of his affidavit of
examination-in-chief that due to lack of resources with the Electricity Board,
such type of accidents are unavoidable, more so when such incident has
taken place in the night. He therefore, admitted such facts that establish that
there was lack of reasonable care and precaution of the Electricity Board in
taking measures in preventing such accidents.
6. In para-7 of his cross-examination he has stated that the defendant
No. 2 had not taken any permanent or temporary connection from the
Electricity Board and it was not in the knowledge of the Electricity Board
that the defendant No. 2 is indulging in theft of energy by taking electricity
supply to his farm without any connection. He admitted that the death of
deceased took place by the defendant No.2 pulling illegal bare wire from
the electricity pole to his farm. He admitted that thereafter no action has been
taken against the defendant No.2 for having caused theft of electricity.
7. Therefore from a perusal of the deposition of DW-1 Shri R. K. Jain,
it is clear that the appellants admit that the accident took place from the
electricity wires illegally pulled by defendant No.2 but pulled from the
electricity pole of the appellants. He further admitted lack of resources with
the Electricity Board to prevent such accidents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
10:42:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44575
4 FA-1378-2018
8. The case of the plaintiffs also was the same and PW-1 Anju Kori in

para-10 of her cross-examination has stated that wires were taken by the
defendant No.2 to his borewell in his farm and they were passing through the
farm of Ram Mani which had been taken on contract by the deceased who
was husband of this witness. She stated that the said illegally pulled electric
wire was lying on the ground from which her husband got electrocuted. She
denied that her husband died by any other cause.
9. This Court has gone through the spot map which was prepared
during investigation of crime upon registration of FIR relating to the present
matter. From the spot map Ex.P-8 it is evident that the illegally pulled wires
were taken up to a distance of 0.75 kilometre i.e. about 750 metre from the
electricity pole. Such type of wires to the distance of 750 metres were
being pulled by a person in the village and such illegal pulling of wires to a
distance of 750 metres could not have been done in a single night. It
depicts that theft must have been taking place since a long time. Therefore,
the defence of the appellants could not be accepted that in the night if
somebody has pulled some illegal wire then it cannot be monitored night and
day by the Electricity Board. The manner in which the spot map depicts the
illegal wires to be pulled makes it evident that it was not done in a single
night or in a single day, but it was a planned attempt of theft of electricity
and the Electricity Board even did not register any case of theft against the
said person, though it took the defence that the sole liability in the
accident lies with the defendant No. 2.
10. It is well settled in law that electricity is a dangerous commodity
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
10:42:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44575
5 FA-1378-2018
and a person dealing with dangerous commodity has strict liability and the

negligence of the person dealing with dangerous commodity is not required
to be proved or established in case the accident takes place by leakage,
pilferage or escape of the dangerous commodity. Strict liability lies on the
person dealing with dangerous commodity.
11. In the present case none of the established exceptions to strict
liability could be established by the defendant No.1/ present appellant either
in its written statement or in the evidence before the trial Court. Even the act
of third party, i.e. Defendant No.2 was made possible when there was active
negligence of the appellant to maintain their supply system and take
measures to prevent such malpractices. The Hon’ble Apex Court has applied
the principle of strict liability in the cases of electrocution deaths in the case
o f Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC
162. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that so long as transmission of
electricity poses foreseeable risk of danger to human life, the supplier bears
primary liability to compensate, irrespective of negligence. It was held as
under :-
2. The supplier of electricity in a locality is striving to squirm out of the
liability to compensate the dependants of the sole victim of a snap
electrocution. The supplier, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short
“the Board”) pleads that the electrocution was due to the clandestine
pilferage committed by a stranger unauthorisedly siphoning the electric
energy from the supply line and hence the wrongdoer alone should be
mulcted with the burden of damages. In a suit filed by the dependants of
the victim the trial court agreed with the Board in regard to the aforesaid
contention, but the High Court disagreed and directed the Board to pay the
amount of damages assessed. The said judgment of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh is now under challenge in this appeal. After hearing
learned counsel for the Board we do not find the necessity to seek the help
of the respondents in deciding this appeal and hence service of notice on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
10:42:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44575
6 FA-1378-2018
the respondents is dispensed with.

4. When the action was brought by his widow and minor son, nobody
disputed the fact that Jogendra Singh died at the place and at the time
mentioned by the claimants. Nor has it been disputed that he was
electrocuted by the live wire lying on the road. The main contention
advanced by the appellant Board is that one Hari Gaikwad (third
respondent) had taken a wire from the main supply line in order to siphon
the energy for his own use and the said act of pilferage was done
clandestinely without even the notice of the Board; and that the line got
unfastened from the hook and it fell on the road over which the cycle
ridden by the deceased slided resulting in the instantaneous electrocution.
xx xx xx
8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person
undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human
life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by
any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part
of the managers of such undertakings. 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”. It differs from
the liability which arises on account of the 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 any negligence attributed. But such
consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant
is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular
harm by taking precautions.
xx xx xx
13. In the present case, the Board made an endeavour to rely on the
exception to the rule of strict liability (Rylands v. Fletcher [(1868) 3 HL
330 : (1861-73) All ER Rep 1] ) being “an act of stranger”. The said
exception is not available to the Board as the act attributed to the third
respondent should reasonably have been anticipated or at any rate its
consequences should have been prevented by the appellant-Board.
In Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. London Guarantee and Accident Co.
Ltd. [1936 AC 108 : 105 LJPC 18 : 154 LT 89] the Privy Council repelled
the contention of the defendant based on the aforecited exception. In that
case a hotel belonging to the plaintiffs was destroyed in a fire caused by
the escape and ignition of natural gas. The gas had percolated into the
hotel basement from a fractured welded joint in an intermediate pressure
main situated below the street level and belonging to the defendants which
was a public utility company. The fracture was caused during the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
10:42:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44575
7 FA-1378-2018
construction involving underground work by a third party. The Privy
Council held that the risk involved in the operation undertaken by the
defendant was so great that a high-degree care was expected of him since
the defendant ought to have appreciated the possibility of such a leakage.

12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any good reason
to interfere in the impugned judgement and decree passed by the trial Court.
The same is confirmed. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to
costs. Let decree be drawn up accordingly
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
nks

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
10:42:45