Electricity suppliers are strictly liable for damages caused by failure to ensure safety of live wires, regardless of negligence.

JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph,J.

This is an appeal filed by the defendants in O.S.No.5/2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Kochi. The parties are referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants. The suit was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- on account of the death, caused by electrocution, of the son of the first plaintiff and brother of plaintiffs 2 and 3 - Master Prajith, aged around 17. His date of birth is 15-5-1986 and death due to electrocution was on 28-4-2003. He had completed Plus II course and he had also done a course in Computer Science. Deceased was also engaged in distributing milk. With his hardworking nature, educational background and aptitude to earning, the plaintiffs estimated an income of around Rs.30,000/- per year and hence on account of the loss to the family due to the untimely death of Master Prajith an amount of Rs.3 lakhs and for the mental agony another Rs.50,000/- was claimed.

According to the plaintiffs, on 28-4-2003 early morning, while the deceased was passing through a bylane he came into contact with a live electric wire. The live electric wire got snapped and fell on the public road on account of the branches of trees standing on either side of the bylane coming into contact with the main line and yet the supply was not disrupted. Under the supply system, in the unlikely event of such a live wire getting snapped and falling on the public road, the supply through that main line should have been automatically cut off.

2. The defendants, however, contended that the accident occurred on account of heavy rain and wind throughout the night on 27-4-2003. The location was a coastal area and the conductor was snapped due to falling of branches of trees standing outside the clearance area on the line due to heavy wind and rain. However, the undisputed factual position is that the death was due to electrocution on account of the deceased coming into contact with a live wire lying on the road. Only after the feeder was switched off the body of Master Prajith could be removed from the accident spot. Yet it was contended that the Electricity Board had taken all due care and caution and the accident occurred only owing to circumstances beyond their control.

3. As already referred above the undisputed factual position is that the death of Master Prajith was due to electrocution. He came into contact with a live wire which got snapped from the main line and which was lying on the bylane and yet the supply through the main line to the snapped wire was not cut off. Even if on account of any unfortunate circumstances, the branches of the trees had fallen on a wire and the line got snapped, the supply should have been cut off. In this context it is significant to note that the evidence discloses that the residents of the locality had registered complaints with the Electricity Board regarding the over-hanging branches of trees coming into contact with electric line and causing disturbances. Yet no steps were taken to cut and remove such over-hanging branches of trees near the electric line. Be that as it may, in view of the decision of the apex court in M.P.Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, 2002 (1) KLT 480 (SC) the Board has no defence since it is a case of strict liability. The Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension, the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part o