Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 20109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. Doshi, J
Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Naniba WD/O Gemarsinh Rupsinh Sodha – Respondent
First Appeal No. 1310 of 2012
Important Points
Subject
Tort Law - Negligence / Liability
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Tort Law - Strict and Absolute Liability - Electricity being a hazardous activity, the utility provider bears non-delegable duty to ensure safety - Once an accident occurs due to contact with live high-voltage lines, the principle of absolute liability applies, irrespective of whether the victim exhibited negligence. (Paras 9, 10, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was tending to his livestock when he came into contact with a live electric wire passing through the branches of a tree near a tube well. He succumbed to his injuries a few days later. The electricity transmission company contested the suit, arguing the deceased was negligent. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the company liable for compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court held that transmitting electricity is a hazardous activity, attracting the principle of absolute liability. The company has a primary, non-delegable duty to maintain lines and prevent human contact. The court rejected the argument of contributory negligence as irrelevant under the absolute liability doctrine.
Issues: Whether the electricity provider is liable for death caused by electrocution despite claims of negligence by the deceased, and whether the principle of strict/absolute liability applies.
Ratio Decidendi: Entities engaged in inherently dangerous activities like electricity transmission are held to an absolute liability standard, meaning they cannot escape compensation claims based on the victim's alleged lack of care.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jayant P Bhatt
For the Respondents: Henil M Shah
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the facts and the contention regarding negligence in an electrocution claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. electricity transmission constitutes a hazardous activity, attracting absolute liability irrespective of victim negligence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. dismissal of the appeal and directions for disbursement of compensation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
1. By way of filing present First Appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”), the appellant – Gujarat Energy Transmission Co. Ltd. (in short “the GETCO”) challenges judgment and decree dated 31.1.2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj, whereby the learned trial Court has partly decreed Special Civil Suit No.81 of 2007 and directed the GETCO to pay Rs.9,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization for the death of Gemarsinh Sodha.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.
3. Briefly states facts of the case are that plaintiffs are legal heirs of deceased Gemarsinh Sodha. That deceased Shri Gemarsinh Rupsinh Sodha used to work as a Maldhari. On 24/04/2003, around 15:00 hrs., the deceased was proceeding alongwith sheeps and goats in the Ugamani Sim of Village: Nana Reha. He had reached near the open Kenal of Tube well. 66 k.v. line was passing through the branches of "Boraci Tree". Because of the wind the branches of "Boradi Tree" came into contact with the deceased. The deceased was electrocuted because of 66 k.v. current. The deceased sustained serious injuries. The deceased died during the course of treatment at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad on 28/04/2003.
3.1 Claiming the aforesaid incident as absolute negligency on the part of the GETCO, the plaintiff No.1 have prayed for compensation for her husband to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest.
3.2 The defendant GETCO having been served, appeared through learned advocate and mainly submitted that the incident took place due to sole negligency of the deceased. It is the deceased who is required to take necessary care to avoid the mishap. Rest of the pleadings are also denied by the GETCO.
3.3 The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit to the aforesaid extent.
3.4 Being aggrieved, the GETCO has preferred present First Appeal.
4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
5. Learned advocate for the defendant would submit that it is a clear case where deceased was negligent and had he taken proper care, the mishap would have been avoided and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, he would submit that the learned trial Court has committed serious error in deciding the issue of negligence against the GETCO. He would further submit that the learned trial Court made proper calculation in grating compensation and even the income of the deceased assessed by the learned trial Court is on the higher side so also 9% interested granted by the learned trial Court is on higher side. Upon above submissions, he prays to allow this First Appeal.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents - plaintiffs would submit that the wires and the running of electric energy in the wires was exclusively under the control and management of employees of the defendant, and it was the duty of the defendant to follow proper procedure to pass electric current in the electric lines. He would further submit that it is obligatory on the part of the GETCO to take great care and caution in laying, installing and maintaining overhead wires and to provide safety measures. He would further submit that the death of the deceased occurred on account of negligence and willful default on the part of the employee of the electricity company and therefore, the learned trial Court has given just and fair compensation and hence, no interference is called for. Upon above submission,
