Strict liability applies to electricity suppliers for electrocution deaths caused by defective maintenance of infrastructure.

The plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit for compensation following the death of Vaghjibhai Tapubhai Barbasiya due to electrocution on June 26, 1998.

The deceased was working in an agricultural field when a garden rake he was using contacted an earthing wire attached to an electric pole.

Investigation revealed that a live electric conductor had detached from a jumper and come into contact with the stay clamp, energizing the earthing wire.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, awarding Rs. 8,05,120/- with 8% interest.

The electricity company (PGVCL) appealed, arguing contributory negligence by the deceased and that the income assessment was excessively high.

1. Whether the death of the deceased was caused by the negligence of the defendant company or due to his own contributory negligence.

2. Whether the Principle of Strict Liability applies to electricity distribution companies in cases of electrocution.

3. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Trial Court was just and reasonable.

The Court applied the doctrine of Strict Liability (no-fault liability) originating from Rylands v. Fletcher, asserting that those engaged in inherently dangerous activities are liable for damages regardless of negligence.

The managers of high-voltage electricity have a non-delegable duty to prevent the escape of energy as per M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari.

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Principles regarding dependency and deduction for personal expenses as discussed in Shardaben Bhikhubhai Vekaria v. Mayurbhai Viththalbhai Movaliya.

The Court rejected the appellant's plea of contributory negligence, noting that an earthing wire should never be live; the fact that it was energized due to a detached conductor constituted a failure of statutory maintenance by PGVCL.

Applying the "Strict Liability" principle, the Court reasoned that since electricity is a hazardous substance, the distributor is liable for injuries caused by its "escape" regardless of the victim's alleged lack of care.

The Court found the Trial Court’s assessment of income (approx. Rs. 4,167/- per month) justified despite a lack of formal pay slips, as the deceased maintained a large family of seven and was an active agricultural partner, not a mere laborer.

The Court noted that even if the income estimate was high, the meager awards under conventional heads (consortium/funeral expenses) ensured the total compensation remained "just and fair".

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s judgment and decree, affirming the compensation of Rs. 8,05,120/- with 8% interest and directing the disbursement of deposited amounts to the plaintiffs.