Electricity suppliers are subject to absolute liability for electrocution caused by inherently dangerous activities.

The plaintiffs, parents of the deceased Abdul Hasam, filed a suit for compensation following their son’s death on December 6, 2001.

The deceased, a plumber, died on the spot due to electrocution after coming into contact with a live wire belonging to the defendant (PGVCL) while passing by a lake in village Bharasar.

The trial court (4th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj) decreed the suit on November 13, 2006, directing PGVCL to pay Rs. 3,38,000/- with 9% interest.

PGVCL appealed, contending that the accident occurred due to the deceased's own negligence and failure to take proper care.

1. Whether the deceased died due to electric shock from a broken wire on the defendant's pillar.

2. Whether the incident was caused by the defendant's negligence.

3. Whether the defendant can avoid liability by claiming contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in a case of electrocution.

The Court applied the doctrine of Strict Liability (and its evolution into Absolute Liability) as established in the landmark English case Rylands v. Fletcher.

Expanded by the Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which held that enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous or hazardous activities are liable regardless of negligence.

It further relied on H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath, affirming that power companies must ensure no injury results from their dangerous activity.

And M.P. Electricity Board v. Shailkumar, which establishes that the "Rule of Strict Liability" applies to electricity suppliers, making them liable irrespective of precautions taken.

The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the deceased was negligent.

It reasoned that the distribution of electricity is an inherently dangerous activity, invoking the principle of absolute liability.

The Court observed that the live wire was hanging loose and at a low height, making it accessible to passersby, which constituted a failure in maintenance by PGVCL.

Under the "Rule of Strict Liability," once an accident occurs due to the escape of a dangerous substance (electricity), the supplier cannot escape liability by pointing to minor negligence by the victim; the onus remains on the licensee to ensure the installation is safe and well-maintained.

Consequently, the trial court's finding of negligence against PGVCL was legally sound.

The Court held that PGVCL is absolutely liable for the death caused by electrocution and cannot claim the defense of contributory negligence when a live wire is left hanging in a public space.

The Court ordered the disbursement of any deposited amounts to the plaintiffs with accrued interest.