Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 602
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J
CHAIRMAN CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
RAM SWAROOP SAHOO – Respondent
FA/7/2025
Mr. Brajendra Singh, Advocate
The doctrine of strict liability applies to electric companies for deaths caused by electrocution, irrespective of negligence, emphasizing their responsibility to ensure safety.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304A - Compensation for death due to electrocution - Plaintiffs awarded Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Smt. Rekha Bai caused by electrocution from a damaged wire connected illegally by defendant No.3 - Defendants No.1 & 2 held jointly liable despite claims of negligence by defendant No.3 - Strict liability of electric company emphasized. (Paras 1, 6, 14)
(B) Strict Liability - The doctrine of strict liability applies to activities involving hazardous exposure to human life, where liability exists irrespective of negligence. (Paras 13, 14)
(C) Negligence - The court found that defendants No.1 & 2 failed to act on the illegal connection, thus contributing to the incident. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit after Smt. Rekha Bai was electrocuted while drying clothes on a wire that came into contact with a damaged wire connected illegally by defendant No.3. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found all defendants jointly liable for the compensation awarded, emphasizing the strict liability of the electric company. (Paras 6, 14)
Issues: The main issues included the liability of defendants No.1 & 2 for the death caused by electrocution and the application of strict liability principles. (Paras 6, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the electric company had a strict liability to ensure safety and failed to investigate how the current was flowing in the plaintiffs' wire, thus upholding the trial court's decision. (Paras 13, 14)
Result: Appeal rejected.
Judgment On Board
24/03/2025
1 Heard.
2 This first appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment dated 22.10.2024 passed by the First District Judge, Balod, District Balod (CG) in Civil Suit No.1B/2021, whereby the civil suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents No.1 & 2 herein has been allowed and compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- has been awarded against appellants and respondent No.3 on account of death of Smt. Rekha Bai, who is wife of respondent No.1 and mother of the respondent No.2.
(The parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status in the suit before the trial Court.)
3 Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that plaintiffs filed civil suit stating inter alia that defendant No.3 Roshan Lal Sahoo (neighbour of plaintiffs) had taken electric connection from his house to his bicycle repairing shop through the house of plaintiffs by using a damaged (कटा(cid:3)-फटा(cid:3)) electric wire about 2-3 years prior to incident. On the date of incident i.e. on 18.06.2019, when Smt. Rekha Bai (wife of plaintiff No.1 and mother of the plaintiff No.2) was putting wet clothes for drying on the wire which was tied in the courtyard (आँ(cid:6)गन) of the house of the plaintiffs, at that time she came into contact with wire and got electrocuted, as such, she died on the spot. Plaintiff No.2 -Tulsi Ram Sahoo (son of the deceased) tried to save his mother, however, he also sustained injuries of electrocution. Electric current came in the aforesaid wire of the house of the plaintiffs from the damaged wire, by which, defendant No.3 had taken electric connection from his house to his bicycle repairing shop. Report was lodged against defendant No.3, to which, FIR (Ex. A-2) bearing Crime No.384/2019 under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered and after investigation, chargesheet (Ex. A-1) was filed against the defendant No.3 -Roshal Lal Sahoo bearing Criminal Case No.888/2019. Plaintiffs/respondents No.1 & 2 herein filed civil suit against the appellants and respondent No.3 herein for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- along with 12% interest.
4 Defendant No.1 remained ex parte before the trial Court. Defendant No.2 filed its reply stating inter alia that since defendant No.3 had taken illegal electric connection from his house to his bicycle repairing shop by using damaged (कटा(cid:3)-फटा(cid:3)) electric wire through the house of deceased and that electric wire came into contact with the wire tied by plaintiffs in courtyard (आँ(cid:6)गन) of their house for drying clothes and deceased while putting wet clothes on that wire, she got electrocuted and died. Thus, there is no negligency on part of defendants No.1 & 2, rather, deceased died because of negligent act of defendant No.3, hence, defendants No.1 & 2 are not liable to pay any compensation.
5 Defendant No.3 also filed his written statement, in which, he denied all the allegations levelled in plaint against him.
6 Learned trial Court framed as many as five issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and after considering evidence & contentions of the parties, held that though defendant No.3 had taken electric connection illegally from his house to his bicycle repairing shop by using damaged (कटा(cid:3)-फटा(cid:3)) electric wire but it was duty of defendants No.1 & 2 to remove such illegal connection but they failed to fulfill their duty, as such, all the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation assessed as Rs.4 lakhs to the plaintiffs. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, appellants / defendants No.1 & 2 has preferred instant appeal.
7 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned trial Court has committed error in deciding the issues by ignoring the fact of the case brought and established by the plaintiffs themselves in their pleadings and deposition, as also the testimony of Hitendra Kumar Yadav (DW-1) that the incident was caused due to negligenc
