The electricity department is held strictly liable under the doctrine of strict liability for electrocution incidents. It is the department's mandatory duty to ensure statutory ground clearances for high-voltage lines, and they cannot shift responsibility onto the victim by claiming negligence without providing concrete technical evidence of safety compliance.

1. The Appellants have preferred the instant appeal by challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2023 passed by District Judge, Jhalawar (hereinafter, “trial Court”) in Civil Suit (Fatal Claim) No.05/2021, whereby, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellants under Section 1(A) of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (for short 'the Act') seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased Badrilal Bheel by electrocution.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that one Badrilal Bheel had taken on rent an agricultural land of one Kanwarlal Bheel situated in the village Kherasi, Tehsil Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar and was executing agricultural work to earn his livelihood. On 21.06.2019, at about 01:00 PM, Badrilal was working in his field and was pouring fertilisers while standing on a tractor trolley, where he came in contact with 11 kV electric line that was hanging below the fixed standard height and as a result, Badrilal died due to electrocution. It is averred that several complaints were made to the higher authorities regarding the height of the aforesaid 11 kV electric line, indicating that the line is below the benchmark and consequences of such type may occur, however, no action was taken by the respondents regarding the same and the death of the deceased Badrilal Bheel was a result of negligence on part of the respondents.

3. The respondents in their pleadings has averred that the electrocution was the result of the deceased 's own negligence, as he was standing on a 10-foot trolley and while pouring out the fertilisers from the trolley, the spade touched the high tension line. It is also averred that there was no negligence on the part of Respondent No. 1, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur ("JVVNL") or any of its employees and the respondents are not responsible for the accident and have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The learned trial Court, based on the pleadings, formulated the following issues:-

"1- vk;k fnukad 21 twu] 2019 dk s nksigj djhc 01 cts xzke [kSjklh rglhy >kyjkikVu ftyk >kykokM e sa cnzhyky ds VªsDVj Vªksyh e sa [kM+s gksdj [kkn Mkyrs le; [ksr ls xqtj jgh 11 ds-oh- fo|qr ykbZu ls gkFk Vdjk tkus ds dkj.k dh otg l s mldh e`R;q gk s xbZ] ftle sa izfroknhx.k dh mis{kk ,oa ykijokgh jgh gS\

2- vk;k oknhx.k e`rd cnzhyky dh e`R;q ds {kfriwfrZ isVs 91]20]000@& #i;s izfroknhx.k ls la;qDrr% ,o a i`Fkdr%&izFkdr% izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\

3- vk;k nq?kZVuk Lo; a e`rd cnzhyky dh mis{kk ,oa ykijokgh dk ifj.kke gS] ftle sa izfroknhx.k dk dksbZ nks’k ugh a gS\

4- vk;k VªsDVj Vªksyh ds pkyd ,o a Lokeh vko’;d i{kdkj gS\

5- vuqrk s’k\"

5. To prove the issues above, the appellants examined PW-1 Lalta Bai, wife of the deceased and PW-2 Mangilal, and the respondents examined DW-1 Adarsh Tiwari and DW-2 Vikas Yadav.

6. The appellants have submitted documents relating to the proceedings conducted by the Police under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., (Exhibit- 1), Report submitted before the Police Station (Exhibit- 2), Site plan (Exhibit- 3), Deceased Panchnama (Exhibit- 4), Memo regarding handing over the deceased dead body to his legal heirs (Exhibit- 5), Post-Mortem report (Exhibit- 8), legal not