Power companies are absolutely liable for electrocution deaths regardless of victim's negligence, rules Gujarat High Court while awarding ₹10 Lakh compensation.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the deceased was negligent and contributed to the accident, thereby absolving the electricity company of liability

The court held

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment

It also directed

The court held that PGVCL is absolutely liable for the death of the deceased under the principles of strict liability, precluding them from claiming the victim’s negligence as a defense

The court ordered the disbursement of any deposited amounts to the claimants with accrued interest and directed the return of the Record and Proceedings to the lower court

01Facts

On June 22, 2005, the deceased, Gopalbhai Ramjibhai Sojitra, went to the terrace of a factory premises where a portion of a service line was tinted inside the parapet. He was electrocuted and died on the spot

p. 2, para 3

The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 15 of 2007, alleging absolute negligence by Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL)

p. 2, para 3.1

PGVCL contested the suit, arguing the deceased was solely negligent for failing to take necessary care

p. 2, para 3.2

The trial court partially decreed the suit on March 30, 2019, awarding Rs. 10,00,000 with 9% interest

p. 1, para 1

PGVCL appealed this decree under Section 96 of the CPC

p. 1, para 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the deceased was negligent and contributed to the accident, thereby absolving the electricity company of liability

p. 3, para 7

ii.2. Whether the electricity company is liable under the principles of strict and absolute liability regardless of alleged negligence by the victim

p. 7, para 12

03Law Applied

The court applied the principle of "Absolute Liability" as established in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which extends the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to hazardous activities, making an enterprise strictly liable without the traditional tort defenses

p. 4, para 8

H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath, which held that power supply companies have a duty to ensure no injury results from inherently dangerous high-tension wires, even near unauthorized structures

pp. 4-5, para 9

M.P. Electricity Board v. Shailkumar, confirming that the "principle of strict liability" applies to electricity licensees regardless of whether precautions were taken

pp. 5-7, para 10

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 96

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that PGVCL is engaged in the business of selling a hazardous substance (electricity) which possesses high potential for danger

pp. 7, para 12-13

It held that the maintenance and insulation of wires to prevent accidents are the exclusive obligation of the supplier

p. 6, para 10

The court dismissed the appellant's argument regarding the deceased's contributory negligence, stating that in cases of "strict liability," the defendant is liable regardless of whether the harm could have been avoided by customer precautions

p. 8, para 13

The court concluded that because the activity is inherently dangerous, the basis of liability is the foreseeable risk; therefore, the electricity company remains primarily liable for any injury or death resulting from contact with its lines

pp. 7-8, para 13-14

05Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment

pp. 9, para 14-15

The court held that PGVCL is absolutely liable for the death of the deceased under the principles of strict liability, precluding them from claiming the victim’s negligence as a defense

p. 8, para 14

The court ordered the disbursement of any deposited amounts to the claimants with accrued interest and directed the return of the Record and Proceedings to the lower court

pp. 9, para 17-18

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF