Dismissed¶11

Assistant Engineer and Others v. Daulatram Sahu and Another

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jan 2026FA/149/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Electrocution death compensation; strict liability; illegal electricity connection; pilferage/siphoning of electric energy; snap electrocution by live wire; supplier liability of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board; Section 96 CPC first appeal against district court decree; M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari AIR 2002 SC 551; Rylands v. Fletcher; Bilaspur; FA No. 149 of 2004; decree of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest upheld.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the trial Court's judgment and decree (Rs. 1,50,000 with 9% per annum interest until May 15, 2004 and 12% per annum thereafter) upheld; first appeal dismissed with parties left to bear their own cost(s). ¶11

Assistant Engineer and Others Vs Daulatram Sahu and Another — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the electricity supplier (the Board) is liable to compensate the dependents of a victim of snap electrocution where the live wire carried energy diverted through an illegal connection/pilferage committed by defendant No. 3.

¶7

Court's answer

Responsibility to supply electric energy in the locality was statutorily conferred on the Board; if the transmitted energy causes injury or death, the liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

An illegal connection taken by defendant No. 3 is no defence for the Board; inspecting and managing the supply and preventing pilferage by installing necessary devices is the look-out of the managers of the supply system.

¶8

Key takeaways

If any live wire got snapped and fell down, the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted.ratio¶8
The liability cast on the supplier is, in law, strict liability, which differs from liability arising from negligence or fault.ratio¶9
Plaintiff proved the illegal electricity connection and his son's fatal contact with a live wire; the defendants failed to establish they were not the providers of the connection or that they maintained the system/minimised pilferage; the trial Court rightly fastened liability on the Electricity Board.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

First appeal under Section 96 of the CPC by officers of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (appellants/defendants No. 1, 2 and 5) against the judgment and decree of the learned Third Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 12-B/2002 dated 12.4.2004, awarding Rs. 1,50,000 with interest (9% per annum until May 15, 2004, 12% per annum thereafter) to the father of Manoj Sahu, aged 16, who died on 7.9.1996 by snap electrocution from a live wire connected to an illegal connection allegedly obtained by defendant No. 3. HELD: the responsibility to supply electric energy in the locality was statutorily conferred on the Board; if the transmitted energy causes injury or death, the liability to compensate is the supplier's; pilferage or illegal tapping by a third party is no defence — preventing it by installing necessary devices is the look-out of the supply system's managers, and a snapped live wire should automatically have been de-energised; the liability is one of strict liability, distinct from negligence. Reliance placed on M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, AIR 2002 SC 551. The trial Court rightly fastened liability on the Electricity Board; the decree was upheld and the first appeal dismissed, parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.01.12 17:32:24 +0530

2026:CGHC:1608

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

FA No. 149 of 2004

¶7

1. Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Takhatpur, Distt: Bilaspur (CG)

¶8

2. Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Tifra, DisttBilaspur (CG)

¶9

3. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Through its Chairman, Headquarter- Raipur, Distt: Raipur (CG)

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1. Daulatram Sahu S/o Puriram Sahu R/o Vill, Modhe Tahsil Takhatpur Distt: Bilaspur (CG)

¶13

2. Ramprasad Patel S/o Khamman Patel R/o Modhe Tahsil Takhatpur Distt: Bilaspur (CG)

¶14

3. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Through its Chairman HQ Rampur Distt: Jabalpur (M.P.)

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Appellants	: Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate
For Respondent	: Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocate on behalf of
No. 1	Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For Respondent	: None, though served
No. 2 & 3

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Judgment On Board

¶19

¶20

12.1.2026

¶21

1) This first appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ defendants No. 1, 2 and 5 under Section 96 of the CPC assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 12-B/2002 dated 12.4.2004, whereby learned Court below has ordered the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000, carrying an interest rate of 9% per annum until May 15, 2004, after which the interest rate increases to 12% per annum.

¶22

2) Facts of the case in a nutshell are that plaintiff filed a suit claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of death of his son, namely, Manoj Sahu due to electrocution. He pleaded that defendant No. 3 was provided electricity connection by the appellants herein in contravention of the directions issued by the Electricity Department and the electric lines were hanging at lower height. He further pleaded that on 7.9.1996, Manoj Sahu, aged 16 years while passing through the agricultural field was electrocuted by a live wire which was laid without proper precaution. He also pleaded that the incident was reported and criminal case was registered against defendant No. 3.

¶23

3) The Electricity Department filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. Defendant No. 3 also filed written statement and repudiated the allegation of pilferage of electric energy. He further stated that temporary connection was provided by the Electricity

¶24

¶25

Department itself. Learned trial Court framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter, judgment and decree was passed.

¶26

4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ defendants No. 1, 2 and 5 submits that learned Court below committed error of law while fastening the liability with the Electricity Department as an illegal electricity connection was obtained by defendant No. 3 without knowledge of the Electricity Department. He further submits that the wrong doer i.e. defendant No. 3 alone should be mulcted with the burden of damages. He contends that defendants examined Chandraprakash Garhwal, Junior Engineer who stated that illegal electricity connection was obtained by defendant No. 3 without prior approval of the department. He prays to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below.

¶27

5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 supports the judgment and decree passed by learned Court below.

¶28

6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

7) In this first appeal, the supplier of electricity in a locality is striving to squirm out of the liability to compensate the dependents of the sole victim of a snap electrocution. The supplier (Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board) pleads that the electrocution was due to

¶30

¶31

the clandestine pilferage committed by defendant No. 3 unauthorisedly siphoning the electric energy from the supply line.

¶32

8) 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, the liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. Even though an illegal electricity connection was taken by defendant No. 3, it was the responsibility of the Board to inspect and manage the electricity supply. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell down, the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted.

¶33

9) 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in the matter of M.P. Electricity Board Versus Shail Kumari and Others¹ held as under :-

¶34

1 . AIR 2002 SC 551

¶35

¶36

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, (1868) Law Reports 3 HL 330. Blackburn J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision :

¶37

"The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, 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 so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."

¶38

11. The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many subsequent decisions in England. A recent decision in recognition of the said doctrine is rendered by the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Countries Leather plc., (1994) 1 All England Law Reports (HL) 53. The said principle gained approval in India, and decisions of the High Courts are a legion to that effect. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, [1990] 1 SCC 613 and a Division Bench in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, [1987] 3 SCC 234 had followed with approval the principle in Rylands v. Fletcher. By referring to the above two decisions a two Judge Bench of this Court has reiterated the same principle in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, [2001] 2 SCC

¶39

12. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. [1987] 1 SCC 395 this Court has gone even beyond the rule of strict liability by holding that "where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is -caused on any one 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

¶40

¶41

exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher".

¶42

10) In the present case, plaintiff has proved the fact that there was an illegal electricity connection and his son came into contact with a live wire and died. Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish that they were not the providers of the said electricity connection; nor did they demonstrate that they took requisite measures to maintain the system or minimize pilferage. In my opinion, learned trial Court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, rightly fastened the liability with the Electricity Board.

¶43

11) As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is hereby upheld. In result, this first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to being their own cost(s).

¶44

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶45

A j i n k y a

Assistant Engineer and Others v. Daulatram Sahu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assistant Engineer and Others v. Daulatram Sahu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Jangde Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Vikas Tandon

Mohit Singhania Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Barmaiya Vs Parmeshwar Patel

Sambhu Korram Vs Deleted Union of India as Per Honble Court Order Dt. 25/09/17

Smt. Tileshwari Bai Vs Arun Kumar @ Pintu