1 2025:CGHC:21652-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 71 of 2023 1 - Kaaryapaalan Abhiyantaa, (Sancha/Sandha) Sambhag, Chhattisgarh State Powers Distribution Co. Ltd. District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Through Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Incorporated As Per Section 131 To 134 Electricity Act, 2003) Through OIC -EE (O & M) Dn., CSPDCL, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Alok Kumar Dubey aged 48 years, S/o Shri S. K. Dubey. 2 - Kanishtha Abhiyantaa, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Tumribod, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Through Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Incorporated As Per Section 131 To 134 Electricity Act, 2003) Through Oic -Ee (O &M) Dn., CSPDCL, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Alok Kumar Dubey aged 48 years, S/o Shri S. K. Dubey. ... Appellants/Defendants No. 1 & 2 Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Kanti Bai, Wd/o Late Pileshwar Sahu, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Nathunawagaon Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Kumari Pallavi Sahu, D/o Late Pileshwar Sahu, aged about 3 years through Mother Respondent No. 2 Smt. Kanti Bai R/o Village Nathunawagaon Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Minor Kumari Tejeswari Sahu, D/o Late Pileshar Sahu, 1 years 6 month through Mother Respondent No. 2 Smt. Kanti Bai R/o Village Nathunawagaon Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge 09.05.2025 1. By this appeal, the appellants would call in question the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 16A/2021 whereby an amount of Rs. 16,37,440/- has been passed as compensation in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs. 2. The facts, in brief are that a suit was filed by the plaintiffs who are the wife and two children against the appellants on the ground that on 19.10.2019 at about 8.30 am the deceased went to his agricultural filed and while working in the field, due to some fault in the electric pole, which was installed adjacent to the land of the deceased, electric current started flowing into the field whereby the deceased came into contact of the electricity and eventually he succumbed to death. The plaintiffs further pleaded that since the live wires were kept open, as such the electricity came into the field and hence, the negligence was on the part of the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs also pleaded that on the date of incident the deceased was aged about 27 years. The plaintiffs next pleaded that the deceased was sole earning member of the family and because of his untimely death they had suffered irreparable injury and on these grounds they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.2023 is bad-in-law as well as facts, the learned Trial Court erred in law while appreciating the material available on record, therefore has reached wrong conclusion and has recorded erroneous findings which are unsustainable. Learned Trial Court erred in not considering the fact that the father of the deceased- Chagan Sahu and mother of the deceased- Kumari Sahu, were proper and necessary party in the case and that despite it they were not impleaded as party in the suit, therefore, the suit ought to have failed for non-joinder of parties. Learned Trial Court erred in not considering the fact that the contractor Etesh Kumar Janghel responsible for installation of stay wire with insulator, was proper and necessary party in the case and that despite it he was not impleaded as party in the suit, therefore, the suit ought to have failed for non-joinder of parties, the learned trial Court erred in awarding exorbitantly high amount of Rs. 16,37,440/-. He further contends that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that in the case before it, the plaintiffs had not claimed and proved different amounts under separate heads and had not laid proof of any of the particular loss or claim by laying evidence to prove the nature, extent and quantified value of loss corresponding to various heads, therefore, award of any amount under any head is not sustainable. Learned trial Court erred in presuming income of the deceased without there being any formal proof of the same, so impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned judgment and decree submits that the learned trial Court minutely 4 appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly passed the judgment and decree, so this appeal is without any merit is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company vs. Smt. Hemlata Netam and others, passed in FA No. 63 of 2021. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the record of learned trial Court. 6. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that respondent Nos. 2 to 4/plaintiffs filed suit against the appellants and respondent No. 1/defendant No. 3/State of Chhattisgarh for compensation on the ground that on 19.10.2019 at about 8.30 am deceased- Pileshwar Sahu went to his agricultural filed and while working in the field, due to some fault in the electric pole, which was installed adjacent to the land of the deceased, electric current started flowing into the field whereby the deceased came into contact of the electricity and eventually he succumbed to death, thus the plaintiffs claimed total amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation under various heads for untimely death of Pileshwar Sahu. 7. Before learned trial Court it is an admitted position that deceased- Pileshwar Sahu died on 19.10.2019 due to electrocution. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants objected on the ground that of non- joinder of the parties and objected that mother and father of the deceased was also necessary party in this suit. This Court vide order dated 31.07.2024 directed to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to file the particulars of the parents of deceased (Pileshwar Sahu) and in compliance of this order, parents of deceased i.e., father- Chagan 5 Sahu and mother-Kumari Sahu filed affidavits in this regard that respondents No. 2 to 4 are their daughter-in-law and grandchildren and they had no objection to give the compensation and they do not want to implead as party in this appeal. 9. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleading of both the parties, framed 2 issues, which reads as under:- वाद प्रश्न निष्कर्ष 1 क्या प्रतिवादीगण के द्वारा निदाँक 19.10.2019 को ग्राम ाथूवागाँव झिनिया रोड निकारे खे में निवद्यु पोल गाड़कर उपेक्षा और लापरवाही से ींक ार में नि.जली करं थी, झिजसके संपक में आे से वादी कांति .ाई के पति और शेर्ष वादीगण के निपा निपलेश्वर साहू की मृत्यु हुई है? "हाँ" 2 क्या वादीगण, प्रतिवादीगण से 20,00,000/-रूपए (अक्षरी .ीस लाख रूपए) क्षतिपूर्ति राशिश प्राप्त करे के अति?कारी हैं "वादीगण, प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 01 एवं 02 से संयुक्त रूप से 16,37,440/-रूपए प्राप्त करे के अति?कारी हैंI” 10.Learned trial Court finds that defendant Nos. 1 and 2/appellants herein admitted that due to their rash and negligent act deceased-Pileshwar Sahu died and also offered 4 lakh rupees as compensation to the respondents/plaintiffs. It is also an admitted position that a criminal case was filed against contractor Etesh Kumar and Assistant Engineer- Balram Sahu under Section 304-A of IPC for their rash and negligent act due to which Pileshwar Sahu was died. 11. It has been held by this Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd (supra) in para 25 as under:- By referring the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Shail Kumar (supra) and Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) this Court in Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. & Another v. Smt. Bahgwati Bai9 held thus at paras 9 to 12 : 6 (9) Now the question arises for consideration as to whether defence raised by the electricity department that they were not liable for the act as no negligence was committed by them whether was available to them or not. Predominantly department has tried to raise defence to the 'torts' strict liability rule and exception for Act of god or safety measures. 8 2002 AIR SCW 129 9 FA 198 of 2003 (decided on 16-6-2014) 2022:CGHC:2100-DB Neutral Citation 13 FA No.63 of 2021 This issue was considered in the case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar and others, 2002 AIR SCW 129 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality is statutorily conferred on the Electricity 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. Therefore applying such principle, the defence so taken on the part of the management of the board that by reason of thunder storm the live wire fell down without there being any negligence was unavailable to the board. Even when safety 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 undertaking. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity and as such liability cast on such person is known, in law, as strict liability which is exactly in this case. (10) Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527 has laid down principle that exception to the doctrine of strict liability or no fault liability for hazardous activities cannot be applied to a Welfare State and there has been a corresponding shift from positivism to sociological jurisprudence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 24 of this judgment has held as under:- 7 “24. The basis of the doctrine of strict liability is twofold; (i) The people who engage in particularly hazardous activities should bear the burden of the 2022:CGHC:2100-DB Neutral Citation 14 FA No.63 of 2021 risk of damage that their activities generate, and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution mechanism, the person who does such hazardous activity (usually a corporation) being in the best position to spread the loss via insurance and higher prices for its products (vide Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn. p. 267). (11) Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that doctrine of strict liability shall be applicable to the public corporation or local bodies which may be of the social utility, undertaking not working for private profit. (12) In the light of aforesaid principles I have examined the evidence adduced by both the parties closely. After careful examination of the evidence, I am of the opinion that the witnesses has substantially stated the fact that electricity line which was being run by the electricity department had broken and fallen to the ground wherein the deceased came in contact. The incidence is also on record that after the line had broken no warning was issued by the department of any danger to this effect that the live wire had broken down which may endanger the public life. It is not the case here that the deceased tried to enter in to a zone of danger knowing full well of the consequences. The fact that he was walking on the road and while such walk he came in contact with such live wire and eventually died because of the electrocution. Therefore the argument which is raised by the appellant that the deceased died not because of the negligence on part of electricity department cannot be sustained. As the deceased had died due to electrocution by electricity line which had fallen down was admittedly maintained by the electricity department. Therefore, they cannot escape the liability on this ground that no negligence was made by them. Therefore, after careful scrutiny of the evidence and finding of the trial court, I am of the opinion that the trial court while awarding the decree of Rs.1,22,500/- after evaluating the income of the deceased who was aged about 40 years has not committed any wrong and 8 therefore the appeal has no merit and accordingly it fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. In the light of aforesaid principle, we have examined the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. It is clear that deceased went to his agricultural field and he came into contact with the electricity, which leaked through the pole situated at the land adjacent to the agricultural field of the death, therefore, the deceased died. The death occurred because of fault on the part of the appellants and not because on the fault of the deceased. Thus, the appellants cannot escape from the liability on the ground that no negligence occurred on their part. Learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and finds that appellants are liable to responsible for death of Pileshwar Sahu. 13. Now, turning to question of compensation, learned trial Court calculated the income of the deceased on the basis of notification dated 19.09.2019 as Rs. 8,600/- and awarded to the tune of Rs. 16,37,440/-. 14. We are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court rightly calculated the compensation amount which is just proper and not awarded exorbitantly. Respondents No. 2 to 4/plaintiffs have not filed any cross- appeal for enhancement of this amount, so the learned trial court calculated the amount in the light of guidelines of Hon’ble Apex and in this Court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge AMIT/Uttej