Strict liability of electricity authorities extends to restorative compensation for destruction of shelter and electrocution.

On December 8, 2017, a live electric wire maintained by the respondent electricity department snapped and fell onto a hut, igniting a fire

The deceased, Ramuram, attempted to salvage household belongings from the burning hut but suffered fatal electrocution upon contact with the wire

The appellants (legal heirs) filed a claim under the Fatal Accident Act, 1855. The trial court (Additional District Judge No. 1, Nagaur) acknowledged the negligence and the cause of death but awarded a sum of only ₹1,25,000/- with 6% interest

The appellants approached the High Court seeking enhancement, contending the award was grossly inadequate given the loss of life and the destruction of their dwelling

Principles of tortious liability under the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, specifically emphasizing the duty of "just compensation"

Doctrine of strict liability (and referred to absolute liability) for authorities maintaining inherently dangerous infrastructure like high-tension electric lines

Maxim res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) to establish negligence from the mere fact of the wire snapping

Constitutional and humanitarian concept of the "Right to Shelter" as a fundamental condition of human dignity, asserting that compensation must be restorative and not merely symbolic

The Court reasoned that the trial court failed in its "solemn duty" to award just compensation by adopting an overly conservative approach

The Court held that maintaining dangerous electric lines requires a high degree of care, and since the wire snapped, negligence was evident

The Court criticized the trial court for ignoring the "existential deprivation" caused by the destruction of the family's hut

The Court observed that for economically vulnerable sections, a hut is a nucleus of existence, and its loss causes prolonged mental agony and displacement that must be factored into the quantum

Regarding the respondents' attempt to imply contributory negligence, the Court ruled that trying to save one's home from fire is a "natural human response" and not a negligent act

The Court held that compensation should include non-pecuniary heads like loss of estate and loss of love and affection, regardless of strict proof of dependency

The Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation from ₹1,25,000/- to ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs). The respondents (AVVNL) were held jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit's filing (04.04.2018) until realization