UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD vs GEETABEN BHARATPURI GOSWAMI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1456/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1456 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD & ANR.
Versus
GEETABEN BHARATPURI GOSWAMI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR AMIT C NANAVATI(1384) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Judgment and decree dated 23.12.2015 passed in Special
Civil Suit No.119 of 2013 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Patan granting compensation of Rs.8,24,000/- with 9% interest
per annum to the original plaintiff on the ground that deceased
Bharatpuri Goswami died due to electrocution, is challenged by
way of this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 by the appellant – Uttar Gujarat Vij Company
Ltd.
2. Brief facts are as under :-
2.1. Deceased Bharatpuri Goswami died on 07.10.2012 at
village Pitharpura, Taluka Chansma, District Patan. Deceased
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:23 IST 2026
C/FA/1456/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
Bharatpuri around 6.30 pm on the unfortunate day climbed on
neem tree; he was cutting leaves and branches of tree to feed
camel. However, at the time heavy electric line passing near
neem tree without any cover / insulation came in contact with
deceased Bharatbhai, he received electric shock and died on the
spot.
3. Claiming aforesaid unfortunate death as result of negligent
act of UGVCL, plaintiff claimed compensation for death of
Bharatbhai on the ground that deceased was 35 years old at the
time of accident; he was camel cart driver and was also working
as laborer and earning Rs.5000/- per month to maintain his
family. It is further stated that claimants were dependent on the
income of deceased and he lost life due to negligent act of the
appellant – UGVCL.
4. Upon above averments, the plaintiff filed suit for
compensation for Rs.12 lakhs with interest at 18% p.a. Upon
service of summons, original defendant – UGVCL filed written
statement at Exh.9 categorically denying carelessness and
negligence of UGVCL. It was denied that deceased was 36 years
old and earning Rs.5000/- per month to maintain his family. It
is further contended that 11 K.V. electric line was passing near
Gokulnagar Society Pitharpura. Though, it was within knowledge
of deceased Bhartpuri that 11 K.V. electric line was passing near
Gokulnagar Society, he climbed tree without any precaution and
cut branches of tree by iron instrument. All these are sufficient
to say that deceased was self negligent in causing accident and
in that view, appellant Electric Company is not liable to pay
compensation.
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:23 IST 2026
C/FA/1456/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
5. Learned Trial Court after permitting both the parties to
lead evidence and after fixing issues, was pleased to partly
decree the suit and granted compensation in aforesaid terms.
Being aggrieved, appellant – UGVCL has preferred this appeal.
6. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the appellant –
UGVCL and learned advocate Mr. Nanavati for the respondent –
original claimant.
7. At that outset, it is to be noted that assessment of
compensation and grant of interest by learned Trial Court are
not questioned in this appeal. What is contended by learned
advocate Mr.Dave for the appellant is that deceased despite
having knowledge that 11 KV electric line passing near neem
tree, he climbed to cut branches by iron instrument and
therefore, it is proved that deceased was negligent and thereby,
appellant – UGVCL is not liable to pay compensation. Secondly,
it is contended that grant of 9% interest on decreetal amount is
erroneous and at the most it could be 6% interest.
7.1. Mainly on above grounds, learned advocate for the
appellant submitted to allow the appeal.
8. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavati for respondent – original
claimant supported impugned judgment and submitted to
dismiss the appeal.
8.1. The solitary question arise for determination in this appeal
is whether untoward incident took place due to self negligence of
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:23 IST 2026
C/FA/1456/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
deceased Bharatpuri or Electricity Company engaged in selling
hazardous product, negligent act which took life of deceased
Bharatpuri ?
9. Having heard learned advocates for both sides, at the
outset let me refer issues framed by learned Trial Court at
Exh.13. It reads as under :-
“(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that demise Bhartpuri is
husband of plaintiff no.1, is died by electrocution, by electric
line of defendants ?
(2) Whether the defendants prove that they have supplied
the electricity with due care and caution and they are not
liable for the incident happened ?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to
get the compensation as they claimed ?
(4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for
interest as they claimed ?
(5) What order and decree ?”
9.1. Issue no.1 is answered in affirmative, issue no.3 and 4 is
answered in partly affirmative, issue no.2 is answered in
negative and issue no.5 as per final order.
10. Report of Electric Inspector at Exh.27 is taken into
assistance by learned Trial Court to arrive at conclusion for
issue no.1 (it is in Gujarati, for better understanding, it is
translated in English). It reads as under :-
“Upon a thorough study of the documents such as the site
inspection of the said electrical accident, statements,
Annexure-13, the site Panchnama, the detailed inspection
report of the Deputy Engineer, the police Panchnama, the
Inquest Panchnama, the P.M. report and the sketch of the
accident site, it appears that, at approximately 6:00 PM, the
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:23 IST 2026
C/FA/1456/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
victim, Mr. Bharatpuri Ishwarpuri Goswami, upon climbing
the Neem tree to cut its branches, one end of a branch came
into contact with a high-tension power line passing nearby.
As the victim, Mr. Bharatpuri Ishwarpuri Goswami, was
holding that same branch with his left hand, he suffered a
leakage current shock through the branch in contact with the
said high-tension line. By applying presence of mind, a
nearby resident of the said incident, Mr. Pareshbhai, broke
the branch to release the victim from the path of the leakage
current and conveyed him to the hospital for treatment,
where the doctors on duty declared him dead.”
11. Facts which could be notice from aforesaid report of
Electric Inspector is that UGVCL was knowing very well that 11
KV electric line is passing nearby neem tree, yet it did not take
care to insulate wire so as to avoid mishap or did not cut the tree
after taking permission from Mamlatdar. It is expected from
villagers or peasants to climb on the tree to take wooden logs. In
this factual aspect, according to this Court, Electricity company
who is expected to take precaution to avoid mishap, has failed in
taking up proper care. One should not forget that electricity
company is engaged in hazardous product and therefore, it is
expected from Electricity company to take utmost care and
caution to prevent any untoward incident. It is settled principle
that doctrine of absolute liability lies upon the Electricity
Company. Thus, it cannot plead negligence of deceased to avert
the liability of paying compensation. Apt to note that no prudent
man knowing that high tension electricity line passing through
tree would climb to touch the live current. Report of Electric
Inspector re-produced herein above states that current was
leaked from wire and passed through body of the deceased. Thus
it is clear case of negligence on the part of UGVCL.
12. In the cross examination of Dy. Engineer Mr.K.A.Patel,
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:23 IST 2026
C/FA/1456/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
some relevant facts comes. His deposition is recorded at Exh.34
(it is in Gujarati language, for better it is translated in English),
it reads as under :-
“12) I came to know about the incident from my helper. He
informed me and the office and thereafter the power supply
was cut off. The supply was cut off at GETCO following the
necessary instructions.
13) Our L.T. line and H.T. line cross near the site of the
incident. The electric line, which was passing near the
incident site, was passing through and touching the
branches of the tree. I cannot state whether the tree where
the accident occurred was 10 years old or not” .
13. In this background, let refer recent judgment of this Court
in case of Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. v/s. Hasam Mamad
Sama [First Appeal No.3505 of 2007 dated 10.03.2026]. In
para 9 to 13, it is held as under :-
“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 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:
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:23 IST 2026
C/FA/1456/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
"....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 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 PGVCL 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.,
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:23 IST 2026
C/FA/1456/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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. 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
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:23 IST 2026
C/FA/1456/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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 was pressed into service is
in case of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited Thru
Deputy Engineer Versus L/h Of Deceaed Jignesh
Jamanbhai Gohil, 2024 (0) JX(Guj) 898.
13. In view of above and in extension of principles of strict
liability or absolute liability, the PGVCL would not be at
privilege to claim negligence of the deceased, more
particularly, when the fact suggests that live wire is hanging
loose enough and was on lower height to come in contact
with the person passing through the age of the lake of
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:23 IST 2026
C/FA/1456/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
village Bharasar. Thus, the present First Appeal requires
fate of only dismissal.”
14. Applying aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed. So far as contention that
interest of 9% p.a. on the decreetal amount is excessive is
concerned, I find no substance in the submission, more
particularly, on the reason that it is grant of compensation to
heirs of deceased who lost his life in electrocution and therefore,
interest of 9% p.a. on decreetal amount is just and proper.
15. Resultantly, present First Appeal fails and stands
dismissed.
16. If any amount is deposited with the learned trial Court, the
same shall be disbursed to the plaintiff along with interest
accrued thereon after due verification.
17. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:23 IST 2026