The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of strict liability in cases of hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, emphasizing the duty of the supplier of electric energy to compensate the sufferer and the requirement to prove breach of duty and causation in negligence cases.

( 2 ) BY consent of the parties, the appeal has been heard on the informal papers, however, upon exchange of affidavits.

( 3 ) THE respondent, being plaintiff, instituted a suit for damages, being Original Suit no. 266 of 2004 (Bijendra Singh v. U. P. Power Corporation Limited and another), before the appropriate Court on 4th November, 2004 and claimed compensation to a tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of death of his elephant due to electrocution.

The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that on 10th August, 2003 his elephant was brought to the public place by Mahout (theelephant-driver)and other two persons sitting on his back for attending a religious procession i. e. Mahabiri Jhanda. After completion of procession while the elephant was driven to come back by Mahout and other two persons, a high voltage open wire of electricity of the U. P. Power Corporation limited, which was hanging on the road and current was passing through it, touched the body of either of the persons sitting on the back of elephant and by the shock all the three persons fell down from the elephant but the elephant, whose feet were in touch with the earth, succumbed to death on the spot. Due to aforesaid incident, the plaintiff-respondent, being owner of the elephant,filed the above suit for damages against the defendants-appellants, who flatly denied the cause of accident in the written statement by saying that there was no such wire hanging through which the electricity was passing. This explanation was given by the defendants-appellants with the support of the statement that in case wire breaks and detaches from the line, by automatic mechanism passing of current is stopped. In support of their contention, the defendants-appellants examined a sole witness, who was not eye witness. He deposed that as because one person who was dancing on the back of the elephant came in touch of the wire, on account of which the accident took place. He also stated that he was neither present on the spot nor did he see how the elephant come in touch of electrical wire and further he was also not able to say as to how many days before the accident he saw that line on the spot. On the other hand, in support of the averments in the plaint not only the plaintiff but also two other eye witnesses were examined, who have categorically deposed about cause of the accident. Ultimately, the Court below held that negligence on the part of the defendants-appellants caused the death of elephant, therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff-respondent and accordingly, decreed the suit awarding compensation, as above.

( 4 ) BY preferring this appeal the defendants-appellants reiterated the facts, as stated before the Court below, and further said that the evidence has not been properly appreciated and analysed by the Court below, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is patently erroneous, illegal, incorrect and improper and as such is liable to be set aside by this Court.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to us, there is a clear contradiction in the stand of the defendants appellants as taken in the written statement and deposition. The sole witness, who was not at all eye witness to verify the truth, adduced the evidence before the Court below by saying that as because one person who was dancing on the back of the elephant touched the electric wire and fell down, on account of which the elephant also came In touch and succumbed to death. On the other hand, it has been stated in the written statement that by automatic mechanism when electrical line is cut off and fallen down, the supply of the electricity will be stopped. These militating state of affairs cannot establish beyond doubt that there was no negligence on the part of the Power Corporation. According to us, to ascertain a negligence certain measures are required to be assessed. Who was diligent or who was more diligent, on the other hand, who was responsi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document