In electrocution cases, strict liability applies, and the plaintiff must only prove injury from electrocution, not negligence of the electricity provider.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant UP State Power Corporation Limited under Section 96 C.P.C. against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.11.2013 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Pilibhit in O.S. No.40 of 2009 (Mohd. Nisar @ Bade Lalla vs. U.P. State Power Corporation Limited), whereby for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff on 02.01.2007 when he was electrocuted from the high tension electricity line of the defendant, a compensation of Rs.3,87,500/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 5% per annum has been awarded to the plaintiff.

Plaint Case

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a labourer, who was earning about Rs.150/- per day at the time of the accident . On 02.01.2007 at about 1:30 p.m., when he was standing near a shop opposite his house, a live over-head high voltage electric wire, which passed above suddenly broke down and electrocuted the plaintiff, causing extremely severe burn injuries to him. It was further averred that he was taken to P.H.C. Puranpur and thereafter, was shifted to Bharat Rashmi Nursing Home, Pilibhit. In the said nursing home, he remained under treatment where his left hand was amputated to save his life. It was further averred that the electrocution also caused very severe injuries on other parts of his body and also on his throat & neck. It was further averred that he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- on his treatment, which was still continuing. It was further averred that there exists a hole in his throat and his condition is still unstable and due to the injuries suffered in the electrocution, he has suffered permanent disability. It was further averred that in order to meet the treatment expenses, he has arranged substantial amount from his relatives and friends. It was specifically averred that due to the injuries caused due to electrocution, he has suffered severe burn injuries on the neck and throat, chest, left hand, right hand and the electric shock has affected his brain, memory and speech. It was further averred that due to the injuries suffered by him, he has suffered 65% permanent disability. It was further averred that the defendant was careless and negligent in not maintaining its electric transmission line and due to its non-repair and non-maintenance, the accident occurred, as such, the liability is on the defendant to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by him.

3. It was further averred that since the date of the accident, i.e., 02.01.2007, the plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings amounting to Rs. 30,000/- up to the filing of the suit (calculated @ Rs. 125/- per day). He has further suffered a loss of future earnings of Rs. 10,00,000/-, loss of amenities of life amounting to Rs. 50,000/-, and has incurred Rs. 1,00,000/- on his treatment. Additionally, he is likely to incur future medical expenses of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Thus, in total, the plaintiff has suffered a loss of Rs. 15,80,000/-, but has restricted his claim to a sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- along with interest. It was further averred that the defendant had due knowledge of the accident, as the same was published in the daily newspaper Dainik Jagran dated 03.01.2007, and information was also provided to the defendant as well as to the State Government; however, the defendant failed to pay any compensation to the plaintiff.

4. In the above backdrop, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:-

"a. That a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against t