### Electricity Board bears strict liability for electrocution despite third-party theft or clandestine pilferage.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Electricity Board can be held liable for an electrocution death caused by the illegal act of a third party siphoning energy from its supply lines.

The court held

It held that the M.P. Electricity Board is primarily liable to compensate the victims of electrocution under the doctrine of strict liability, irrespective of the clandestine pilferage by a third party.

It also directed

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court’s judgment and decree.

01Facts

The respondents (plaintiffs), the wife and children of the deceased Ram Sumiran Kori, filed a suit for compensation following his death by electrocution on the night of 17.11.2010.

¶ 2

The deceased was guarding his rice crop when he came into contact with a live wire illegally pulled by Defendant No. 2 (Respondent No. 5) from an electricity pole belonging to the appellant (M.P. Electricity Board) to supply his own farm.

¶ 2

The trial Court decreed the suit, directing the appellant and Defendant No. 2 to jointly or severally pay Rs. 4.45 Lakh in compensation.

¶ 1

The appellant challenged this, arguing that the accident resulted from the third party's illegal act (theft) which could not be monitored in the dead of night.

¶ 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Electricity Board can be held liable for an electrocution death caused by the illegal act of a third party siphoning energy from its supply lines.

¶ 3, 5

ii.2. Whether the principle of strict liability applies to the appellant in the absence of proven negligence or in the event of an act by a stranger.

¶ 10, 11

03Law Applied

The court applied the principle of Strict Liability, which dictates that individuals or entities dealing with hazardous or dangerous commodities (like electricity) are liable for damages regardless of negligence or precaution.

¶ 10, 11

It specifically relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari (2002) 2 SCC 162, which established that the supplier of electricity bears primary liability to compensate for foreseeable risks to human life, and the "act of a stranger" exception is generally unavailable if the act could have been anticipated or prevented.

¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 96

04Reasoning

The court rejected the appellant's defense that the accident was solely due to the illegal act of Defendant No. 2. It noted that the appellant’s own witness (DW-1) admitted to a lack of resources to prevent such accidents and acknowledged that the death occurred via illegal wires pulled from the Board’s pole.

¶ 5-7

The court observed from the spot map (Ex.P-8) that the illegal wires stretched 750 meters, suggesting a long-standing theft that the Board failed to detect or prosecute.

¶ 9

The court reasoned that since electricity is a "dangerous commodity," the Board is under a strict liability; thus, it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to establish negligence.

¶ 10

The court found that the Board failed to satisfy any established exceptions to strict liability, as the malpractice was a foreseeable risk that the Board failed to mitigate through proper maintenance and oversight.

¶ 11