Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 352
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Master Jayendrasinh Mangubha Jadeja - Defendant
R/First Appeal No. 1606 of 2010
Decided On : 12-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Tort Law - Strict and Absolute Liability
Act Referred
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT : S.5
Headnote
(B) Negligence - Contributory negligence - Minors - The standard of care applied to a minor differs from that of an adult; minors are generally not held to the same degree of discernment and are, in many instances, considered incapable of contributory negligence for actions involving hazardous infrastructure. (Paras 13, 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
A lawsuit for compensation was filed after a minor child suffered permanent total disability due to an electric shock while attempting to retrieve a kite entangled in overhead wires on a pole. The distribution company contested the claim, arguing the incident resulted from the child's own negligence in climbing the structure. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the claimant, leading to the current appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that since the entity was engaged in an inherently dangerous activity, the doctrine of absolute liability applies. The responsibility to maintain lines and prevent accidents rests solely with the service provider, and they cannot shift the burden by alleging fault on the part of a minor who lacks the maturity to understand potential hazards.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the electricity distribution entity could be held liable despite allegations of contributory negligence, and whether the standard of care expected from a minor precludes a finding of negligence in cases of electrocution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the duty of care placed on entities dealing with high-risk energy transmission is absolute. The liability arises from the nature of the risk involved in the activity itself. When such a hazardous activity causes harm, the provider is strictly liable to compensate the victim, irrespective of any alleged negligence by the victim, particularly when the victim is a minor.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant : Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi.
For the Defendant : Mr. Henil M. Shah.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and factual background of the negligence claim for compensation against the electricity provider. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. determination of negligence and framing of issues regarding liability for electric shock injuries. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. application of absolute liability principles to power companies for hazardous electricity-related accidents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. conclusion of proceedings, dismissal of the appeal, and order for disbursement of compensation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of filing present First Appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”), the appellant – PGVCL challenges judgment and decree dated 6.3.2009 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (SD), Bhuj, whereby the learned trial Court has partly decreed Special Civil Suit No.87 of 2007 filed by the minor son of the plaintiff through his natural guardian and father, and directed the PGVCL to pay Rs.9,80,,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.
3. Briefly states facts of the case are that the plaintiff is residing at Dhokda, Taluka Mandvi-Kachchh. The defendant is the Company duly constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and is having its circle office at Bhuj, and divisional office at Mandvi, and is carrying on the business of distribution of electricity supply in Kachchh District. That the residential house of the plaintiff is situated in Village Dhokda, Taluka: Mandvi-Kachchh. That on 14-01-2007, the minor son of the plaintiff was flying kite in the outskirt of the Village, at that time, the kite hanged on the electric pole. When the minor son of the plaintiff tried to remove the kite from the pole, he was electrocuted and he experienced electric shock resulting into serious injuries and permanent total disability.
3.1 Claiming the aforesaid incident as absolute negligency on the part of the PGVCL, the minor son of the plaintiff has prayed for compensation for his son to the tune of Rs.12,50,000/- with interest.
3.2 The defendant PGVCL having been served, appeared through learned advocate and mainly submitted that the incident took place due to sole negligency of the minor son of the plaintiff. It is the minor son of the plaintiff who is required to take necessary care to avoid the mishap. Rest of the pleadings are also denied by the PGVCL.
3.3 The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit in aforesaid terms in favour of the plaintiff.
3.4 Being aggrieved, the PGVCL has preferred present First Appeal.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chinmay Gandhi for the appellant – defendant. Learned advocate Mr. Henil Shah appearing for the respondent plaintiff, despite sufficient opportunity was provided to him, he did not remain present to argue the matter.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi having referred to the contention raised in the written statement, would submit that it is a clear case where minor son of the plaintiff was negligent and had he taken proper care, the mishap would have been avoided and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, he would submit that the learned trial Court has committed serious error in deciding the issue of negligence against the PGVCL. He would further submit that the minor son of the plaintiff on his own climbed on the pillar for decongest kite hanged in the wire and thus, the minor son of the plaintiff came in contact with live electric wire and thereby, the incident occurred. He would further submit that there is no allegation by the plaintiff that the electric wire was hanging loose from the electric pole or that it was loosely fitted. Rather, the admission on the part of the minor son of the plaintiff in the plaint that the wires were new and that they were installed only 6-7 months prior to the incident
