1 2025:CGHC:32300-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No.98 of 2022 1 - Managing Director (Prabandhak Evam Sanchalak) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. C.G. Behind Rajkumar College, Danganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Engineer, Bilaspur Region, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Tifra, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintending Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer (O And M), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Sakti, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 5 - Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Sakti, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kanishtha Yantri, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Ps Baraduar, Tehsil Sakti, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. Through Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Incorporated As Per Section 131 To 134 Of Electricity Act, 2003) through- EE (O And M) Dn. Cspdcl, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh- Mr. U.K. Shukla, 54 Yrs., S/o Late Purushottam Shukla...........Appellants/ Defendants 1 To 6 Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 2 - Chief Electricity Inspector, Ii Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sitaram Sahu S/o Dauvaram Sahu, Aged About 42 Years 4 - Deepak Kumar Sahu, S/o Sitaram Sahu, Aged About 15 Years 5 - Bhuneshwar Sahu, S/o Sitaram Sahu, Aged About 13 Years Respondent Nos.4 & 5 Through Father Respondent 3 Sitaram Sahu, Respondent Nos.3 to 5 R/o Hariyardih, PS Jaijaipur, Haal Mukam Darrabhantha Aadil, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh...............Respondent/defendant 7 And 8 And Plaintiff Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Devesh Kela, PL For Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : Mr. K. K. Dewangan, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 11/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.03B/2019, whereby the claim case of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.3 to 5 has been allowed and amount of Rs.11,50,000/- has been awarded as compensation payable by the defendants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Sukmat Bai, who is the wife of plaintiff No.1 and mother of plaintiff Nos.2 & 3, was residing with her family in a rented home situated at Village 3 Sakreli Bhantha Baradwar, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and on 02.05.2014 when she was drying clothes on GI wire, then she came in contact with electricity and died due to electrocution. Thereafter a case was got registered in Police Station Baradwar on 02.05.2014 itself, upon which a merg No.13/14 was registered. Subsequently, a claim case was filed by the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court on the ground that due to fault of the defendants, the deceased has died. The claim case of the plaintiffs was partly allowed and Rs.11,50,000/- was awarded in favour of the plaintiffs payable by the defendants, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree is erroneous in law and facts both and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that no nobody has witnessed the deceased sustaining injury/electrocution from the source which was under the maintenance liability of the appellants resulting in her death. There is total absence of any proof that the Gl wire in the house of the deceased was electrified and that the GI wire came into contact with the live electricity supply wire and that the live electricity supply wire had fallen on the Gl wire, because it was in a torn & worn out condition. The learned Trial Court has ignored 4 the material evidence of plaintiff witness PW-2 who deposed that the GI wire was not electrified. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the accident did not involve any fault or negligence or breach of any liability on the part of the appellants due to which liability could be fastened on the appellants. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the fact that the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, responsible for Power Distribution, is a legal entity, separate and distinct from its shareholders, officers and servants, was proper and necessary party in the case, but despite that it was not impleaded as party defendant in the suit therefore the suit ought to have failed for non joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, under these circumstances, the appeal deserves to allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 supports the impugned judgment and decree and submits that the learned trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has rightly passed the judgment and decree, so this appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on this Court’s judgment dated 09.05.2025 in FA No.71/2023 in the matter of Kaaryapaalan Abhiyanta (Sancha/Sandha) Sambhag, CSPDCL and another vs State of Chhattisgarh and others. 5 5. Learned State counsel supports the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the respondents No.3 to 5 have filed the suit against the appellants and respondents No.1 & 2 for compensation on the ground that on 02.05.2014 deceased Sukmat Bai was doing household work and was drying clothes on GI wire and due to some fault in the wire, electric current started into wire and the deceased came into contact with same and eventually she succumbed to death. Thus, the plaintiffs claimed Rs.72,00,2000/- as compensation under various heads for untimely death of Sukmat Bai. 8. Before the learned trial Court, it is an admitted position that the deceased Sukmat Bai died on 02.05.2014 due to electric shock. 9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 4 issues, which are as under:- okn iz’u fu"d"kZ 1 D;k] e`rdk lqderckbZ dh e`R;q 02-05-2014 dk s muds fdjk;s ds edku ldjsyhHkkBk ckjk}kj tks fd Mh0,e0lh0 ds cuk dejs ls yxk gS] tgka th0vkbZ0rkj esa lq[kk;s x;s diM+s dks fudkyrs le; fo|qr Li’kkZ?kkr ds ifj.kkeLo:i gks x;h \ Þ gka ß 2 D;k] e`rdk lqderckbZ dh e`R;q izfroknh dz1 ls 7 ds }kjk ykijokghiwoZd Lrjghu dVs Þ gka ß 6 fNys rkj ls Mh0,e0lh0 DokVj esa fo|qr dusD’ku iznk; fd;s tkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i gqbZ gS\ 3 D;k] oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls 72]12]000 :i;s e`R;q dh {kfriwfrZ izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gkW rks fdruk vkSj fdlls \ Þoknhx.k] izfroknh d1 ls 7 ls 11]50]000@& :i;s ,oa okn izLrqfr fnukad 15-03- 2019 l s vnk;xh fnukad rd 8% okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt lfgr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSaA ß 4 lgk;rk ,oa O;; \ Þ dafMdk &18 ds vuqlkj ß 10. The plaintiffs/respondents No.2 to 5 supported their plaint averments and filed documents (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/13). Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/4 are certified copies of criminal case and postmortem report, which proves this fact that Sukmat Bai died due to electrocution. The appellant’s witness DW-1 Ankit Soni also filed documents from Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4, but he admitted that Sukmat Bai died due to electric current. The learned trial Court rightly found that Sukmat Bai died due to electric current and the maintenance of the electric wire is the responsibility of electricity department. 11. It has been held by this Court in the matter of Kaaryapaalan Abhiyanta (supra) in para 11 as under:- “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 7 Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. & Another v. Smt. Bahgwati Bai9 held thus at paras 9 to 12 :(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 8 Supreme Court at para 24 of this judgment has held as under:- “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 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 therefore the appeal has no merit and accordingly it fails and is hereby dismissed.” 9 12. In light of the above principle, we have examined the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, which makes it clear that the deceased was working in her home and she came into contact with the electricity, which leaked through the wire situated at her house and she died due to electric shock. The cause of death of the decease was due to fault on the part of the appellants and not because the fault on the part of the deceased. Thus, the appellants cannot escape from the liability on the ground that no negligence occurred on their part. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly found that the appellants are liable for the death of deceased Sukmat Bai. 13. Now turning into the question of compensation, It is clear that the learned trial Court has calculated the income of the deceased on the basis of the prevalent labour charge of unskilled labour as Rs.6,000/- per month and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.11,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 14. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly calculated and awarded the compensation amount in favour of the plaintiffs, which is just and proper and 10 cannot be said to be exorbitant amount. Inasmuch as, the respondents No.3 to 5/plaintiffs have not filed any cross appeal for enhancement of the amount, as such the same corroborates that the compensation amount has rightly been calculated and awarded by the learned Trial Court. 15. The appeal is without any merit. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Nirala