Strict liability does not impose responsibility where the victim's negligence contributes to the harm, emphasizing the importance of individual responsibility.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the Electricity Board, being aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai, passing a decree for Rs.5,08,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

2. For the accidental death of one Ponmudi, the plaintiffs are the wife, mother, two minor children. According to them, on 19.09.2009, at about 6.00 p.m., the said Ponmudi went to the open terrace without parapet wall and while going closure to the high tension wire, he caught fire and fell down from the terrace. He was taken to the hospital for treatment. However, he scummed to the injury. A complaint under Crime No.339 of 2009 was registered. Post-mortem report disclosed that his death was due to electric shock. According to the plaintiffs, the accident occurred due to negligence and carelessness of the officials of the Electricity Board as well as the owner of the building, who failed to construct a parapet wall. Due to improper maintenance and failure to provide protective casing, the accident had occurred.

3. The deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and had an expectation of life up to 95 years, the plaintiffs, who are dependents of the deceased are therefore entitled for Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. The Electricity Board filed a written statement stating that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, who had crossed the line without knowing that there is no parapet wall. The HT and LT lines were maintained properly and carefully. The allegation that the department has to maintain the wire, is baseless. The deceased, who in a careless manner contacted the line wire, sustained burn injury. The third defendant, who is the owner of the said building, is responsible for maintaining the building and if at all any liability for the loss of life, the third defendant has to compensate.

4. The third defendant has also filed written statement stating that the building is owned by 20 persons and he holds only a 1/20^th share in the building. He further stated that the building is lying on the extreme southern side of the road. At the time of incident, the deceased Ponmudi, who was involved in taking to caller on his mobile phone, had moved on the southern side and seems to have walked freely without noticing the fact that there is no parapet wall on the southern side of the complex building. He got electrocuted and suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital, but died due to injury. The building is owned by 20 persons and therefore, without impleading the others, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. The trial Court framed the following Issues:-

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

(ii) To what other relief?

6. On the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examine and 12 exhibits were marked. On the side of the defendant two witnesses were examined and 3 exhibits were marked.

7. The trial Court, applying the principle of strict liability held that the Electricity Board ought to have provided a protective mechanism to safeguard against contact with the high tension wire. Having failed to provide a protective mechanism, the Electricity Board is liable to pay the compensation. Having held so taking into consideration the age and claim of compensation, the trial Court fixed notional income of Rs.2000/- per month after deducting 1/4^th for personal expenditure, by applying the principle made in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and awarded a sum of Rs.5,08,400/- in total.

8. Being aggrieved,