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

The deceased, a 22-year-old apprentice lineman for Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited (UGVCL), was directed by a superior and a helper to repair a phase fault on an electric pole on October 23, 2000

While attempting the repair, he suffered a severe electric shock, fell, and subsequently died from his injuries

The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging negligence, which the trial court decreed in their favor, awarding ₹9,56,360 with 6% interest

UGVCL appealed, arguing that the deceased was negligent because he climbed the pole despite being an apprentice and allegedly ignored instructions not to do so

1. Whether the deceased met his death due to the negligence of the defendant electricity company

2. Whether the principle of strict or absolute liability applies to an electricity company when a person is injured or killed by contact with live wires

The court applied the principle of "Strict Liability" and "Absolute Liability" as evolved from the common law rule in Rylands v. Fletcher

It relied heavily on M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which established that enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous or hazardous activities are absolutely liable for harm resulting from such activities regardless of negligence

The court further cited H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath and M.P. Electricity Board v. Shailkumar, affirming that electricity providers have a non-delegable duty to ensure safety and maintain infrastructure to prevent the escape of dangerous energy.

The court rejected UGVCL’s defense of contributory negligence or "self-inflicted injury." It reasoned that since electricity is a hazardous substance, the company is under a primary liability to prevent harm

The court found that the helper’s act of directing an apprentice to perform a dangerous task (climbing the pole) constituted a breach of duty

Applying the "Absolute Liability" doctrine, the court held that even if the company had taken precautions, it remains liable for accidents inherent in the nature of its risky business

It noted that no prudent person would voluntarily seek electrocution and that the company failed its obligation to ensure the apprentice's safety during the operation

It held that UGVCL, being engaged in a hazardous activity, is absolutely liable for the death regardless of any alleged carelessness by the deceased

The court ordered the disbursement of the deposited compensation amount to the plaintiffs and dismissed all connected applications