Principle of Absolute Liability Prevents Electricity Companies from Pleading Contributory Negligence in Electrocution Fatalities

The deceased, Bharatpuri Goswami, died on October 7, 2012, due to electrocution

He had climbed a neem tree to cut branches for camel fodder when an uninsulated 11 KV high-tension electric line passing through/near the tree came into contact with a branch he was holding, causing instantaneous death

The legal heirs filed a suit for compensation of Rs. 12 lakhs

The trial court awarded Rs. 8,24,000/- with 9% interest, holding the appellant (UGVCL) negligent

UGVCL appealed, asserting that the deceased was self-negligent as he was aware of the high-tension line

1. Whether the untoward incident occurred due to the self-negligence of the deceased or the negligence of the Electricity Company

2. Whether the grant of 9% interest per annum on the compensation amount was erroneous or excessive

The court applied the "Doctrine of Absolute Liability" as expanded by the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shailkumar [(2002) 2 SCC 162] and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [AIR 1987 SC 1086], which establishes that enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous or hazardous activities are liable to compensate for harm regardless of precautions taken

It further relied on H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath [(2004) 5 SCC 793], affirming the duty of power companies to ensure safety distances and insulation even near unauthorized structures or trees

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governed the appellate jurisdiction

The Court observed that UGVCL was aware of the high-tension line passing through the neem tree but failed to insulate the wires or trim the tree branches

Referring to the Electric Inspector’s report [Exh. 27], the Court noted that current leaked from the wire through the branch the deceased was holding

The High Court rejected the appellant's plea of "self-negligence," reasoning that under the principle of absolute liability, an electricity company cannot escape liability by pointing to the victim's actions once an accident involving their hazardous product occurs

The Court emphasized that no prudent person would intentionally touch a live high-tension wire and found that the proximity of the uninsulated line to a clickable tree constituted a failure in the company's "utmost care and caution" duty

It held that the death was a clear case of negligence on the part of UGVCL and that the deceased’s actions did not mitigate the company's absolute liability

The Court also confirmed that the 9% interest rate was just and proper for a compensation claim of this nature

UGVCL was directed to disburse the deposited amount to the plaintiffs