Fatal accident compensation survives the claimant’s death and devolves upon legal heirs as part of estate.

On January 21, 1991, the deceased, Shayan, and his friend were laying TV cable wires on the terrace of Bhadreshwar Flat, Ahmedabad

A short circuit occurred in an adjacent 132 KV overhead line, causing fatal burn injuries to Shayan, who died on February 4, 1991

The mother (Plaintiff No. 1) and brother (Plaintiff No. 2) of the deceased filed a suit for compensation

The Ahmedabad Electricity Company (AEC/Torrent Power) and Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) contested liability; AEC claimed the line belonged to GEB, while GEB argued that AEC was responsible for maintenance under a lease agreement

During the trial, the mother died, and her legal heirs (the deceased’s siblings) were brought on record

The Trial Court awarded Rs. 1,90,000 with 9% interest, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable, but dismissed the claim of Plaintiff No. 2 as a dependent under the Fatal Accidents Act

Both GEB and Torrent Power appealed the decree

1. Whether GEB or AEC (Torrent Power) can be absolved of liability based on their inter se agreement regarding the ownership and maintenance of the 132 KV line

2. Whether the siblings of the deceased, joined as legal heirs of the deceased mother, are entitled to receive compensation in light of the restrictions under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855

3. Whether the right to sue for compensation survived the death of the mother (original plaintiff) under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act

The court applied the principle of Strict and Absolute Liability, holding that entities engaged in inherently dangerous activities (electricity supply) are liable for mishaps regardless of negligence

Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, which limits primary claimants to specific relatives

Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, defining "legal representative" as one who represents the estate of the deceased

Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act was applied to determine that the right to claim compensation for the death of a son is not a "purely personal" right that extinguishes upon the mother’s death, but rather forms part of her estate

The court rejected the electricity companies' attempts to shift liability inter se. It noted that since neither GEB (the owner) nor AEC (the user/maintainer) produced the relevant agreement in court, both remained jointly and severally liable due to their shared responsibility for the hazardous 132 KV line

Regarding the siblings' entitlement, the court distinguished between their status as "dependents" (which they were not under the Fatal Accidents Act) and their status as "legal representatives" of their deceased mother

The court reasoned that once the mother (a valid claimant) filed the suit, the potential compensation became a vested interest in her estate. Upon her death, her Class-I heirs (the siblings) stepped into her shoes to claim that estate under Section 2(11) of the CPC

The court dismissed the argument that the cause of action died with the mother, clarifying that the right to seek compensation for electrocution is not a personal injury action like defamation that terminates under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act

It held that both GEB and Torrent Power are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation

The court further held that the siblings, as legal heirs representing the estate of the deceased mother, are legally entitled to receive the awarded amount of Rs. 1,90,000 with accrued interest

The Registry was directed to transfer any deposited amounts to the City Civil Court for disbursement to the legal heirs