The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the electricity supplier in cases of electrocution, emphasizing the duty to prevent escape of electric energy and to take safety measures to avoid accidents. The judgment also highlights the application of the doctrine of strict liability in cases of hazardous activities and the exceptions to the rule of strict liability.

1. Leave granted.

2. The supplier of electricity in a locality is striving to squirm out of the liability to compensate the dependents of the sole victim of a snap electrocution. The supplier, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short the Board) pleads that the electrocution was due to the clandestine pilferage committed by a stranger unauthorisedly siphoning the electric energy from the supply line and hence, the wrong doer alone should be mulcted with the burden of damages. In a suit filed by the dependents of the victim, the trial court agreed with the Board in regard to the aforesaid contention, but the High Court disagreed and directed the Board to pay the amount of damages assessed. The said judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is now under challenge in this appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the board, we do not find the necessity to seek the help of the respondents in deciding this appeal and hence, service of notice on the respondent is dispensed with.

3. One Jogendra Singh, a workman in a factory, aged 37, was riding on a bicycle on the night of 23.8.1997 while returning from his factory, without any premonition of the impending disaster awaiting him en-route. The disaster was lying on the road in the form of a live electric wire. There was rain and hence, the road was partially inundated with water. The cyclist did not notice the live wire on the road and hence, he rode the vehicle over the wire which twitched and snatched him and he was instantaneously electrocuted. He fell down and died within minutes.

4. When the action was brought by his widow and minor son, nobody disputed the fact that Jogendra Singh died at the place and at the time mentioned by the claimants. Nor has it been disputed that he was electrocuted by the live wire lying on the road. The main contention advanced by the appellant board is that one Hari Gaikwad (third respondent) had taken a wire from the main supply line in order to siphon the energy for his own use and the said act of pilferage was done clandestinely without even the notice of the board; and that the line got unfastened from the hook and it fell on the road over which the cycle ridden by the deceased slided resulting in the instantaneous electrocution.

5. Third respondent disclaimed any liability, repudiated the allegation of pilferage of electric energy and disowned having taken the line from the main supply wire which became the death trap of Jogendra Singh.

6. The compensation claim was in a sum of Rs. 6.9 Lacs. The trial court assessed the compensation amount to which the claimants are entitled to as Rs. 4.34 Lacs. But the claimants were non-suited by the trial court solely on the premise that the claimants "failed to prove who was liable for the above compensation." A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the appeal filed by the claimants and directed the board to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 4.34 Lacs to the claimants. The Division Bench reached the said conclusion on the following reasoning:

"The MPEB has stated in paragraph No. 5 of the document Ext. P6 that it has kept staff to see that no pilferage of electricity takes place and it had no knowledge about this pilferage of electricity line by Hari Gaikwad. Therefore, it becomes clear that the electricity supply line was moving in that part of the area out of which the wire was hanging, may be or may not be put by Hari Gaikwad, but it was live electricity wire and when the deceased came in contact with it, he died of electrocution. Therefore, the defences put up by the MPEB are absolutely without any basis and do not reflect the real position at the spot, rather attempt has been made to conceal the real position in order to avoid responsibility and liability for payment of compensation."

7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or de