The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of strict liability in cases involving the supply of high voltage electric energy, where the operator is held liable irrespective of having taken precautions to avoid harm.

Settled in village Kachhrial of Tehsil Akhnoor located near the Actual Line of Control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioners had to leave their home and hearth in the year 1999 because of disturbances on the Border. They were settled temporarily by the State Government at Ram Nagar Migrant Camp Bomal situated in Tehsil Akhnoor. Ganesh Dass aged 20 years, their son, was sleeping in a tent on February 22, 2001 when the Transformer installed by the Power Development Department of the State Government near the tent caught fire and 11 KV Electric Line carrying high voltage electric energy dropped at the tent hitting severely, sleeping Ganesh, who sustained severe burn injuries to which he succumbed at Sub District Hospital, Akhnoor.

2. Attributing Ganesh’s death to the State Government’s negligence in not employing safety devices and taking measures, requisite for ensuring that high voltage energy did not escape and caused damage and loss that it had the potential so to do, the petitioners have filed this Petition seeking compensation for the death of Ganesh, the sole bread winner of the petitioners’ family.

3. Denying their liability the State Government says that the Electric Department had maintained the electric lines properly and falling of one of the lines, on its own, because of fire in the Transformer, resulting into the death of Ganesh would not make the State liable for compensation for his death, in that, unexpected falling of electric line was beyond their control. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is stated excessive. It is pleaded that the compensation should be reasonable, fair and just and not a bonanza.

4. To support the above view, reliance is placed on Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty reported as 2003 AIR SCW 3797. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

5. The State-respondents do not deny Ganesh’s death by electrocution as a result of dropping of high tension wire on the tent in which he was sleeping. It is also not denied that the responsibility to maintain controlled flow of electric energy was that of the State Government.

6. In the circumstances, the issue that would, therefore, fall for consideration is as to whether the State Government was liable to compensate the petitioners for the death of their son by electrocution.

7. The legal position being settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as also by this Court in its various decisions that anyone generating, transmitting, supplying or using electric energy of high voltage, is required under law, to ensure that such energy was not transmitted or discharged, unless requisite measures had been taken to prevent its uncontrolled escape, that may injure, impair or take away life or property. Any omission in preventing the discharge of high voltage electric energy by anyone engaged in the activity of supplying such energy is, under law of Torts, liable to compensate for the damage caused because of the uncontrolled escape of such energy. The basis of such liability is a foreseeable risk, inherent in the very nature of such activity.

8. Liability to compensate for the damage caused because of such activity is known as “Strict Liability”. It differs from the liability that arises from negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking requisite precautions. If the operator of such high voltage electric energy had done all that which could be done to avoid harm, it may not be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed; but such consideration may be wholly irrelevant in the case of “Strict Liability” where the operator of the activity is held liable irrespective of its having taken precautions to avoid harm.

9. In this view of the matter, the plea projected by the State-respondents denying their liability to compensate the petitioners for the death of their son cannot be accepted, for, dealing in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document