The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of strict liability in cases involving hazardous activities, highlighting the extra duty of authorities to prevent mishaps and the liability to compensate for injuries, irrespective of negligence or carelessness.

JUDGMENT :

DR.A.K.RATH, J.

This is a defendants’ appeal against an affirming judgment.

2. Respondent no.1 is the widow and respondent nos.2 to 5 are the son and daughters of one Saudagar Meher. On 17.09.2007 evening night, Saudagar Meher was watching an opera show organised by defendant no.4. Defendant no.4 had taken electric connection from the nearby transformer. At about 12 A.M., electric sparked from the transformer, whereafter current passed to the iron grill installed by the opera. Saudagar Meher came in contact with the grill and succumbed to injuries. Naked electric wires were hanging from the electric post. P.S. No. 60 of 2007 was registered. Thereafter respondent nos.1 to 5 as plaintiffs instituted C.S. No. 27 of 2009 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Bargarh claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-for the death of Saudagar Meher. It is pleaded that Saudagar Meher died due to electrocution. Defendant nos.1 to 3 had not taken adequate precaution while according permission to the defendant no.4. Saudagar Meher, deceased was aged about 27 years. He was a weaver by profession. After his death the family received a serious setback.

3. Defendant nos.1 to 3 filed their written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that no permission was accorded to defendant no.4. They had no knowledge about the unauthorised connection of electric supply. The liability cannot be fastened on them for the unauthorised connection of electric wire by defendant no.4. Defendant no.4 filed his written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck seven issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined three witnesses including plaintiff no.1 and on their behalf four documents had been exhibited. One witness was examined by the defendants. On a threadbare analysis of evidence on record as well as pleadings, the learned trial court came to hold that Saudagar Meher, husband of the plaintiff no.1 died due to electrocution while watching an opera show. There was negligence on the part of the defendants for which accident occurred on 17.09.2007. Applying principle of strict liability, the learned trial court held that the defendant nos.1 to 3 are also liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. It further held that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased. Held so, the learned trial court awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation with 6% interest. The defendant nos.1 to 3 unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court in the court of the learned District Judge, Bargarh in R.F.A. No. 45 of 2013, which was eventually dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Saudagar Meher was watching an opera show on the date of occurrence. The manager of the opera show took electric connection unauthorisedly. The accident occurred due to negligence of the manager of the opera show. There was no negligence on the part of the defendants in maintaining the electric wire. He further submits that the defendants were not aware of unauthorised electric connection. There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The plaintiffs had not lodged an F.I.R. against the unauthorised electric connection. Since the incident occurred in the rural area at mid night, it was not possible on the part of the electric company to keep a vigil on the same. The courts below travelled beyond their jurisdiction in applying the principle of doctrine of strict liability and saddled liability on the defendants.

7. An identical case came up for consideration of this Court in case of T.Bimala vs. Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack and others, 2015 (II) ILR-CUT-1. In the said case, the son of appellant was working as a daily wage earner under the contractors of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation. On 15.05.2009 on the