Electricity companies are subject to absolute liability for accidents involving hazardous energy, regardless of victim negligence.

On May 14, 2004, the deceased, Rajivsingh, suffered a fatal electric shock while adjusting a TV antenna and wire when he came into contact with a high-tension wire

The heirs of the deceased (the plaintiffs) filed Special Civil Suit No. 289 of 2008 alleging absolute negligence by the Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL) and sought compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/-

The DGVCL contested the suit, attributing the incident to the sole negligence of the deceased for failing to take necessary care

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, awarding Rs. 7,96,816/- with 9% interest

The DGVCL appealed this judgment under Section 96 of the CPC, challenging the findings on negligence and the quantum of compensation

1. Whether the deceased was negligent and if such negligence caused the incident, thereby absolving the electricity company of liability?

2. Whether the Trial Court erred in its calculation of compensation and the rate of interest?

The court applied the principle of Absolute Liability, an extension of the "Strict Liability" rule from Rylands v. Fletcher, as established by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

This doctrine mandates that an enterprise engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities (like the supply of high-voltage electricity) is liable to compensate for harm resulting from such activities regardless of the precautions taken

The court further cited H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath, which clarifies that power companies are duty-bound to ensure safety even near unauthorized constructions

M.P. Electricity Board v. Shailkumar, which holds that the "onus is on the licensee" to prevent accidents

The Court reasoned that since DGVCL is engaged in the hazardous business of transmitting high-voltage electricity, it is subject to the principle of absolute liability

The Court rejected the appellant's defense of contributory negligence, noting that in cases of inherently dangerous activities, the liability is "strict regardless of whether [the defendant] could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions"

The Court emphasized that it is the primary duty of the electricity company to maintain and insulate wires to prevent the escape of energy

Consequently, the Trial Court’s findings against the DGVCL regarding the lack of safety measures and the low height of wires in a residential area were upheld, as the company failed to prove it followed all safety rules under the Indian Electricity Act

The Court held that the DGVCL is absolutely liable for the death caused by its high-tension wires, irrespective of any alleged negligence by the deceased

The court ordered the disbursement of the deposited compensation amount (Rs. 7,96,816/-) along with the accrued 9% interest to the plaintiffs