Electricity companies are absolutely liable for electrocution fatalities regardless of negligence under the principle of strict liability.

On August 30, 2009, Dipakbhai Amrabhai Bagda died instantly after coming into contact with electric current while passing an electric pole

The heirs of the deceased (respondents) filed a civil suit alleging absolute negligence by the appellant (PGVCL) and seeking ₹10,00,000 in compensation.

The PGVCL contended that the accident resulted from the deceased's sole negligence

The Trial Court (5th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh) partly decreed the suit, awarding ₹4,37,000 with 7% interest

PGVCL appealed this judgment under Section 96 of the CPC, challenging both the liability and the quantum of compensation

1. Whether the deceased was negligent, thereby absolving the Electricity Company of liability

2. Whether the principles of strict and absolute liability apply to an enterprise engaged in the transmission of electricity

3. Whether the compensation and interest awarded by the Trial Court were legally sound

The court primarily applied the principle of Absolute Liability as established in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which holds that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity is strictly and absolutely liable for harm resulting from such activity without the traditional defenses of tort law

It relied on H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath, stating that power companies must ensure no injury results from their inherently dangerous business

Additionally, it cited M.P. Electricity Board v. Shailkumar, affirming that the responsibility for maintaining safe installations lies with the licensee, and negligence of the victim is generally not a defense under the "principle of strict liability"

The High Court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the deceased's contributory negligence. The court reasoned that since PGVCL is engaged in the business of selling and transmitting a hazardous substance (electricity), it has a primary, non-delegable duty to maintain insulated wires and prevent the escape of current

The court noted that because electricity has a "potentiality of dangerous dimension," the law of torts imposes liability regardless of whether the company took reasonable precautions

This "strict liability" arises from the foreseeable risk inherent in the activity itself; therefore, the appellant cannot claim the deceased's negligence to avoid paying compensation

The court found no merit in the challenge against the Trial Court’s calculation of income or interest

It held that the PGVCL is absolutely liable for the death caused by electrocution, irrespective of any alleged negligence by the deceased

The court ordered the disbursement of any deposited amounts to the plaintiffs with accrued interest and directed the return of the Record and Proceedings to the lower court