Electricity companies are strictly liable for accidents caused by high-voltage wires despite unauthorized building constructions.

The plaintiff (a minor girl, studying in 9th standard) was electrocuted on June 23, 1997, while playing on a terrace. A high-voltage (11 KV) wire, hanging approximately 2 to 2.5 feet above the roof level, came into contact with her.

She suffered severe burn injuries, underwent multiple surgeries, and ultimately had her left leg amputated below the knee, resulting in 60% permanent disability.

The trial court awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- with 9% interest.

The appellant (MGVCL) challenged this, contending that the residence was constructed illegally without permission, which reduced the vertical clearance of the pre-existing high-tension line from the required 15 feet to 2 feet.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the defendant electricity company.

2. Whether the defendant is absolved of liability if the construction of the building was unauthorized or illegal.

3. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded to the minor for loss of limb, future prospects, and matrimonial prospects was justified.

The court applied the Doctrine of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability for entities engaged in inherently hazardous activities.

It relied on the precedent of H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath (2004) 5 SCC 793, which establishes that an electricity board has a duty to ensure required safety distances are maintained and must move to demolish unauthorized constructions near wires to prevent injury; failing which, they must bear the consequences of their inaction.

The court also referred to Executive Engineer, G.E.B. v. Zubedabal Ibrahim (2004) regarding the absolute duty to prevent harm from hazardous goods.

The court rejected the appellant's defense that the construction was unauthorized. It reasoned that the electricity company, dealing in hazardous goods, bears an absolute duty to maintain safe clearances.

The court found that even if the construction was illegal, the company failed in its duty to either ensure the wire remained at a safe height (prescribed at 15-16 feet) or take legal action to remove the proximity threat.

Factually, the court noted from the panchanama and photographs that the wire was sagging at 2 to 2.5 feet from the roof, likely due to loosening.

The court applied the principle that no negligence can be attributed to the minor victim.

Regarding quantum, the court justified the amount considering the impact on the schoolgirl’s future earning capacity, loss of social/matrimonial prospects in Indian society, and the trauma of losing a limb.

The court directed that the compensation amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- with interest be disbursed to the victim.

The final holding affirmed that the illegality of a structure does not absolve an electricity provider of its absolute duty to prevent electrocution caused by its hazardous infrastructure.