http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 180 of 2002

PETITIONER:

M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD

RESPONDENT:

SHAIL KUMARI AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/01/2002

BENCH:

K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

2002 (1) SCR 164

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted.

The supplier of electricity in a locality is striving to squirm out of the

liability to compensate the dependants of the sole victim of a snap

electrocution. The supplier, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short

the Board) pleads that the electrocution was due to the clandestine

pilferage committed by a stranger unauthorisedly siphoning the electric

energy from the supply line and hence the wrong doer alone should be

mulcted with the burden of damages. In a suit filed by the dependents of

the victim the trial court agreed with the Board in regard to the aforesaid

contention, but the High Court disagreed and directed the Board to pay the

amount of damages assessed. The said judgment of the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh is now under challenge in this appeal. After hearing learned

counsel for the Board we do not find the necessity to seek the help of the

respondents in deciding this appeal and hence service of notice on the

respondents is dispensed with.

One Jogendra Singh, a workman in a factory, aged 37, was riding on a

bicycle on the night of 23.8.1997 while returning from his factory, without

any premonition of the impending disaster awaiting him en-route. The

disaster was lying on the road in the form of a live electric wire. There

was rain and hence the road was partially inundated with water. The cyclist

did not notice the live wire on the road and hence he rode the vehicle over

the wire which twitched and snatched him and he was instantaneously

electrocuted. He fell down and dies within minutes.

When the action was brought by his widow and minor son, nobody disputed the

fact that Jogendra Singh died at the place and at the time mentioned by the

claimants. Nor has it been disputed that he was electrocuted by the live

wire lying on the road. The main contention advanced by the appellant Board

is that one Hari Gaikwad (third respondent) had taken a wire from the main

supply line in order to siphon the energy for his own use and the said act

of pilferage was down clandestinely without even the notice of the Board;

and that the line got unfastened from the hook and it fell on the road over

which the cycle ridden by the deceased slide resulting in the instantaneous

electrocution.

Third respondent disclaimed any liability, repudiated the allegation of

pilferage of electric energy and disowned having taken the line from the

main supply wire which became the death trap of Jogendra Singh.

The compensation claim was in a sum of Rs. 6.9 lacs. The trial court

assessed the compensation amount to which the claimants are entitled as Rs.

4.34 lacs. But the claimants were non-suited by the trial court solely on

the premise that the claimants "failed to prove who was liable for the

above compensation". A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 3

allowed the appeal filed by the claimants and directed the Board to pay the

compensation amount of Rs. 4.34 lacs to the claimants. The Division Bench

reached the said conclusion on the following reasoning :

"The MPEB has stated in paragraph No. 5 of the document Ex. P/6 that it has

kept staff to see that no pilferage of electricity takes place and it had

no knowledge about this pilferage of electricity line by Hari Gaikwad.

Therefore, it becomes clear that the electricity supply line was moving in

that part of the area out of which the wire was hanging, may be or may not

be put by Hari Gaikwad, put it was live electricity wire and when the

deceased came in contact with it he died of electrocution. Therefore, the

defences put up by the MPEB are absolutely without any basis and do not

reflect the real pos