Electricity Companies are Absolutely Liable for Electrocution Injuries Arising from Inherently Dangerous Activities regardless of Negligence

The plaintiff, a farmer from Mendarda, suffered serious injuries and permanent total disability on November 24, 1998, after coming into contact with a live earthing wire lying on the ground near a transformer maintained by the defendant (PGVCL).

The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 167 of 2001 seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit on September 14, 2012, awarding Rs. 6,10,000/- with 6% interest.

PGVCL appealed, contending that the incident occurred due to the plaintiff's own negligence, that the 50% disability assessment was excessive, and that the monthly income was determined without documentary evidence.

1. Whether the plaintiff proved that the electrocution and resulting permanent disability were caused by the negligence of the defendant.

2. Whether the concepts of strict and absolute liability apply to the Electricity Company regardless of allegations of contributory negligence by the victim.

The Court applied the principle of Absolute Liability as established in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which imposes liability without exceptions on enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous or hazardous activities.

The Court followed H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath, holding that power companies must ensure no injury results from their activities.

The court relied on the Strict Liability doctrine from M.P. Electricity Board v. Shailkumar, asserting that the obligation to maintain safe electrical lines rests solely with the licensee.

The court also noted the defendant’s statutory duty to obtain necessary permissions and testing reports before passing current through lines as per the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

The Court rejected PGVCL's argument of contributory negligence, reasoning that electricity is a hazardous substance and the company carries an "absolute liability" to prevent its escape.

The court noted that the transformer was not hermetically sealed and the earthing wire was left dangerously exposed on the ground, representing a breach of the defendant's duty of care.

Under the principle of strict liability, the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether it took precautions, as the harm was a foreseeable risk inherent in the activity.

The Court found that the wires and energy were under the exclusive control of PGVCL, and their failure to produce safety test reports or permissions further established their liability.

It held that the PGVCL is absolutely liable for the injuries caused by electrocution.

The Court directed the disbursement of any deposited amount to the plaintiff with accrued interest and ordered the Registry to return the Records and Proceedings to the Trial Court.