Family of a deceased employed strict liability against State Electricity Board for electrocution. Court applied established ratio allowing part compensation.
Directed respondents to pay Rs. 2,98,800/- to appellants within 45 days, carrying 8% interest per annum thereafter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
FA No. 204 of 2008
1. Smt. Lachhni Bai S/o Late Duja Ram Sahu aged about 30 years
2. Sant Ram, S/o late Shri Duja Ram Sahu, aged about 6 years Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt. Lachhni Bai W/o. Late Shri Deoj Ram Sahu
Both R/o Village Dhimantikur Nawagam, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
1. Chief Executive Engineer, C.G., Electricity Board, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
2. Sub-Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Branch Chhati, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava and Shri Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board
06.12.2023
1. This first appeal has been filed by the appellants, who are the wife and minor son of the deceased Duja Ram Sahu, who met with a fatal accident and died due to electrocution while removing a stay wire in front of his house. One electric pole and one stay wire were present near the house of deceased Duja Ram, but no safety guard was installed. The allegation is that the incident occurred due to a faulty electricity line erected by the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL), in which, the husband of appellant No.1 aged about 35 years sustained electric shock and succumbed to it.
2. On 06.11.2023, deceased – Duja Ram Sahu while removing a stay wire in front of his house unfortunately came in contact with a live electricity wire, which was running very close to the stay wire and sustained fatal injuries due to electrocution which eventually led to his death.
2
3. In the instant appeal, compensation has been claimed. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the respondents under the rules were dutybound to conduct the periodical inspection of the electric lines, poles, transformers etc., maintained by them and to take care of the safety measures to prevent accidents. These provisions relating to safety and security have not been followed by the Board. It is further submitted that irrespective of the fact whether the death was caused due to negligence on the part of the respondent Board, the principle of strict liability is applicable as the respondents carry on hazardous and dangerous activity. Consequently, the loss of life is required to be compensated by the respondents without any enquiry into the tortious liability of the Board under ordinary law.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants and submit that the disputed issue is as to whether any negligence was there on the part of the respondents or not. He would further submit that the present case falls under the exception to the strict liability.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari 2002 ACJ 526: (AIR 2002 SC 551) elaborated the doctrine of strict liability which has its origin in English common law, in cases of death of a citizen due to snap electrocution where a very limited scope of defence was left to an incumbent, who is obliged to adhere to the requisite safety measures. The said principle of strict liability has been applied irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the Managers/Operators of undertaking with activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life. Paras 8, 9 & 10 are relevant and quoted herein below:-
3
“8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e., the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.
9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English common law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher, Blackbur, J, the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision :
“The true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damages which is the natural consequences of its escape”.
10. “There are seven exceptions formulated by means of case-law to the doctrine of strict liability. It is unnecessary to enumerate those exceptions barring one which is this : “Act of stranger i.e., if the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, the rule does not apply”. (Vide P.535, Winfield on Tort, 15th Edn.)”
At para 12 of M.P. Pradesh Electricity Board (supra), the law laid down in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 : (1987) 1 SCC 395 was also taken note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following words:-
“ 12. Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principles of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher”.
4
7. Further, this Court while following the decision of the Supreme Court in Shail Kumari (supra) applied the doctrine of strict liability in the case of Santosh Kumar Kashyap and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2014 STPL 4831 wherein it was observed that though ordinarily, a claim for compensation and damages caused due to negligence of other party has to be raised before the Civil Court or in case where for a particular tortious liability any remedy is provided in any law, before the Court or Tribunal constituted under such laws, for example, cases relating to motor accidents, fatal accidents or workmen compensation, however, the Supreme Court in Shail Kumari (supra) applied the doctrine of strict liability which has its origin in English common law, in cases of death of a citizen due to snap electrocution.
8. Here in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the husband of appellant No.1 died while removing a stay wire lying in front of his house. His left hand came into contact with a live electricity wire in which current was flowing therefore the death was caused due to electric shock. Thus taking into account the significant fact that the death of the deceased occurred due to electrocution, in my view, the ratio of decision reported in Shail Kumari (supra) would be applicable to this case also.
9. In view of the above position of law, the instant appeal is allowed in part . Now coming to the point as to what would be the amount of compensation to be awarded, the provisions contained in the second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act can be taken as guidelines. The status of the family and financial condition of the appellants are not in dispute. There is no denial of the fact that the deceased was drawing Rs.2,100/- per month at the relevant time. Therefore, considering the age and income of the deceased, in the opinion of this Court, the interest of justice would be sub-served if a lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,98,800/-
5
is awarded to the appellants. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents shall pay an amount of Rs.2,98,800/- to the appellants within a period of 45 days, failing which, the amount would carry further interest @ 8% per annum from the date of incident till the date of realisation.
Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Nimmi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the doctrine of strict liability applies to electrocution deaths caused by hazardous electricity lines regardless of negligence.
What is the appropriate compensation amount and payment terms.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail KumariFollowed¶23
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari 2002 ACJ 526: (AIR 2002 SC 551) · Who else cites this
Rylands v. FletcherReferred¶26
Rylands v. Fletcher
M.C. Mehta v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶29
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 : (1987) 1 SCC 395 · Who else cites this
Santosh Kumar Kashyap and others Vs. State of ChhattisgarhApplied¶32
Santosh Kumar Kashyap and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2014 STPL 4831
Smt. Lachhni Bai
Sant Ram
Chief Executive Engineer, C.G. Electricity Board, Dhamtari
Sub-Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Branch Chhati
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
