Back
2026 Supreme(All) 790
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sandeep Jain, J.
Pappu – Appellant
Versus
U.P. State Electricity Board Its Principal Officer – Respondent
First Appeal No. - 713 of 2021
Decided On : 15-04-2026
For the Appellant : In Person, Smt. Shanti Devi, Sudhanshu Kumar, Swapnil Kumar
For the Respondent: Baleshwar Chaturvedi
Important Points
Subject
Tort Law - Negligence and Strict Liability
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Adverse Inference - Failure of the defendant to examine witnesses or present evidence in support of assertions regarding safe installation and regulatory compliance yields an adverse presumption against the party holding such information. (Paras 53, 55)
(C) Compensation - Quantum - Assessment in cases of 100% functional permanent disability - Involves calculating loss of future earnings, medical expenses, attendant requirements, and loss of future prospects; compensation for minors should be calculated based on the minimum wages for skilled labour prevailing at the time of the accident. (Paras 72, 77, 78)
Facts of the case:
A minor child sustained severe electrocution injuries while playing near a transformer installed on open public land, resulting in the amputation of both upper limbs. The utility provider, while acknowledging the incident, denied liability by claiming the victim was at fault and asserting the equipment was installed according to regulations, though no evidence was produced to substantiate these claims. The lower court dismissed the suit due to perceived contributory negligence and procedural issues, which was challenged in this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the utility provider failed to demonstrate that the transformer was adequately secured with necessary safety barriers. Given the nature of electricity as a hazardous activity, the principle of strict liability applies, and the entity managing the supply must be held accountable for injuries caused by unsecured equipment. The plea of contributory negligence was rejected, as minor children cannot be expected to exercise the same level of self-preservation as adults.
Issues: The main issues were the applicability of strict liability for electrocution injuries, whether the victim’s conduct constituted contributory negligence, and the appropriate methodology for calculating compensation in a case involving 100% permanent functional disability.
Ratio Decidendi: Electricity transmission is per se a hazardous and dangerous activity. Therefore, the provider of electricity has an absolute, non-delegable duty to ensure that its infrastructure is properly fenced, caged, or secured to prevent any accidental contact. This duty arises independently of any alleged negligence by the victim; because the risk is foreseeable and inherent in the activity, the doctrine of strict liability prevails. Furthermore, as minors lack the cognitive maturity to perceive such risks, they are immune from assertions of contributory negligence. Failure to produce evidence concerning the installation standards invites a legal presumption that such measures were not adequately implemented.
Result: Appeal allowed. The judgment of the lower court is set aside and compensation is decreed in favor of the claimant with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual matrix: accident, injuries, and evidence of electrical hazard. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding negligence, contributory negligence, and duty of care. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 3. correction of trial court's erroneous reasoning and procedural misdirection. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 4. strict liability applies to hazardous electrical infrastructure irrespective of negligence proof. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 5. burden of proof on provider for safety measures; impossibility of contributory negligence for children. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 6. calculation of compensation for permanent disability using functional loss and attendant costs. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 7. finalizing the decree and directives for payout and execution. (Para 81 , 82 , 83) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Jain, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.10.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 7 Agra in O.S. no.171 of 2003 Pappu vs. Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board, whereby the plaintiff 's suit seeking compensation for the injuries sustained due to electrocution from the transformer of the defendant on 01.3.1997 has been dismissed on the ground that the incident occurred due to the plaintiffs' own negligence. Appeal is admitted.
Plaint case
2. The plaintiff- appellant Pappu filed O.S.no 171 of 2003 through his guardian and next friend his father Hari Singh, against defendant U.P. State Electricity Board with the averments that he was an innocent, simple but intelligent, healthy, energetic and handsome child aged about 7 years, studying in 2nd class in Kapil Dev Shastri, Jr.High School, Nangla Padi, Agra. The defendant is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the electricity laws, the basic object of whom is to generate, transmit and supply electricity by installing the electric line, transformers and other instruments.
3. It was further averred that the defendant placed a transformer of 11,000/400 Volts 100 KVA capacity on the open land near the gate of the building of Primary School, Nangla Padi, Agra, which was managed by Nagar Nigam, Agra. It was further averred that the distance between the steps of the school building and the place where the above transformer was installed was not more than 3 feet, the transformer was placed in open without any fencing, barricading or any other means to protect it. It was further averred that under law such transformer must be efficiently protected by fencing not less than 1.8 m in height or other means so as to prevent access to the electric line and apparatus therein. It was further averred that the officials of the defendant never erected any such protection around the transformer as was required by law.
4. It was further averred that the residents of the locality several times requested the officials of the defendant to protect such transformer as per law by fencing or otherwise so that any untoward accident may not be caused but no heed was paid to it.
5. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on 01.3.1997 at about 5 PM when he was playing with other children near the above school building, then he had an accidental contact with the 11 KV side of the transformer, which was unprotected and unsecure, there was a heavy flash and both his hands and arms were badly burnt due to electrocution. Some neighbours on seeing the incident rushed to the spot and removed the plaintiff from the said transformer and got him admitted to S.N. Medical College Hospital, Agra, where a major operation was done on 14.3.1997 in which both the hands and arms of the plaintiff were amputated. He was again operated on 28.4
