1 2025:CGHC:14069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 7 of 2025 1 - Chairman Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Daganiya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Junior Engineer C.G. State Power Distribution Company Ltd Distribution Centre Jhalmala Tahsil And District Balod (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants versus 1 - Ram Swaroop Sahoo Father Late Birjhu Ram Sahoo Aged About 52 Years Caste Teli Village And Post Belmond Thana/ Tahasil/ District Balod (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Tulsi Ram Sahu Father Ram Swaroop Sahoo Aged About 24 Years Caste Teli Village And Post Belmond Thana/ Tahasil/ District Balod (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Roshan Lal Sahoo S/o Narayan Singh Sahu Aged About 45 Years Village And Post Belmond Thana/ Tahasil/ District Balod (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Brajendra Singh, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 24/03/2025 1 Heard. 2 This first appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment dated 22.10.2024 passed by the First District Judge, Balod, District Balod (CG) in Civil Suit No.1B/2021, whereby the civil suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents No.1 & 2 herein has been allowed and compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- has been awarded against appellants and respondent No.3 on account of death 2 of Smt. Rekha Bai, who is wife of respondent No.1 and mother of the respondent No.2. (The parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status in the suit before the trial Court.) 3 Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that plaintiffs filed civil suit stating inter alia that defendant No.3 Roshan Lal Sahoo (neighbour of plaintiffs) had taken electric connection from his house to his bicycle repairing shop through the house of plaintiffs by using a damaged (कटा-फटा) electric wire about 2-3 years prior to incident. On the date of incident i.e. on 18.06.2019, when Smt. Rekha Bai (wife of plaintiff No.1 and mother of the plaintiff No.2) was putting wet clothes for drying on the wire which was tied in the courtyard (आँगन) of the house of the plaintiffs, at that time she came into contact with wire and got electrocuted, as such, she died on the spot. Plaintiff No.2 -Tulsi Ram Sahoo (son of the deceased) tried to save his mother, however, he also sustained injuries of electrocution. Electric current came in the aforesaid wire of the house of the plaintiffs from the damaged wire, by which, defendant No.3 had taken electric connection from his house to his bicycle repairing shop. Report was lodged against defendant No.3, to which, FIR (Ex. A-2) bearing Crime No.384/2019 under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered and after investigation, chargesheet (Ex. A-1) was filed against the defendant No.3 -Roshal Lal Sahoo bearing Criminal Case No.888/2019. Plaintiffs/respondents No.1 & 2 herein filed civil suit against the appellants and respondent No.3 herein for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- along with 12% interest. 4 Defendant No.1 remained ex parte before the trial Court. Defendant No.2 filed its reply stating inter alia that since defendant No.3 had taken 3 illegal electric connection from his house to his bicycle repairing shop by using damaged (कटा-फटा) electric wire through the house of deceased and that electric wire came into contact with the wire tied by plaintiffs in courtyard (आँगन) of their house for drying clothes and deceased while putting wet clothes on that wire, she got electrocuted and died. Thus, there is no negligency on part of defendants No.1 & 2, rather, deceased died because of negligent act of defendant No.3, hence, defendants No.1 & 2 are not liable to pay any compensation. 5 Defendant No.3 also filed his written statement, in which, he denied all the allegations levelled in plaint against him. 6 Learned trial Court framed as many as five issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and after considering evidence & contentions of the parties, held that though defendant No.3 had taken electric connection illegally from his house to his bicycle repairing shop by using damaged (कटा-फटा) electric wire but it was duty of defendants No.1 & 2 to remove such illegal connection but they failed to fulfill their duty, as such, all the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation assessed as Rs.4 lakhs to the plaintiffs. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, appellants / defendants No.1 & 2 has preferred instant appeal. 7 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned trial Court has committed error in deciding the issues by ignoring the fact of the case brought and established by the plaintiffs themselves in their pleadings and deposition, as also the testimony of Hitendra Kumar Yadav (DW-1) that the incident was caused due to negligence of respondent No.3, as he had taken electric connection negligently from his house to his bicycle repairing shop, that too, by using damaged wire, which has been proved by the plaintiffs in 4 their own evidence. As such, the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 8 I have heard leaned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record. 9 To prove the case, both the plaintiffs have examined themselves and defendant No.2 has examined his Assistant Engineer. 10 From perusal of pleadings and deposition of Ram Swaroop Sahoo (PW-1) and Tulsi Ram Sahoo (PW-2), it is found proved that defendant No.3 - Roshan Lal Sahu was having electric connection in his house along with electric meter and plaintiffs were also having electric connection along with electric meter in their house. As per plaintiffs, defendant No.3 had taken electric connection from his house to his bicycle repairing shop through their house by a damaged (कटा-फटा) electric wire and it came into contact with the wire tied by them in courtyard (आँगन) of their house and therefore, while putting wet clothes on that wire to get it dry, deceased got electrocuted and died on the spot. Death of deceased on account of electrocution has not been rebutted by defendants, rather, it is also proved from the certified copy of chargesheet (Ex. A-1) as well as in Post Mortem Report (Ex.A-8) of deceased, in which cause of death has been shown “due to electrocution”. Thus, learned trial Court has rightly recorded finding in respect of issue no.3 to the extent that deceased died due to electrocution while she was putting wet clothes for drying on wire tied by them in their courtyard (आँगन). 11 Plaintiffs- Ram Swaroop Sahoo (PW-1) and Tulsi Ram Sahoo (PW- 2) have deposed that defendant No.3 had taken electric connection from his house to his bicycle repairing shop through their house by using a damaged (कटा-फटा) electric wire, which came into contact with the wire tied by them in 5 their courtyard (आँगन) for drying wet clothes, due to which, electric current was flowing on the wire and when deceased put wet clothes on the wire for drying, she got electrocuted. It appears that both the plaintiffs / witnesses are rustic villagers, they have not stated particular fact that how that alleged damaged electric wire had come into contact with the wire tied by them in their house for drying the wet clothes. Defendant No.2 i.e. Hitendra Kumar Yadav (DW-1), who was Assistant Engineer of Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company), has not deposed any specific fact that how electric current was flowing in the wire tied by plaintiffs in their house for drying the clothes. He has also not stated that any enquiry was conducted by him or his department to examine the issue as to how electric current was flowing in the said wire tied in the courtyard (आँगन) of house of deceased, rather, Hitendra Kumar Yadav (DW-1) has denied the suggestion that, in enquiry, he found that defendant No.3 had taken electric connection from his house to his bicycle repairing shop. Though he has stated that in enquiry, he found that electric current was flowing in the wire, which was tied by plaintiffs in their house for drying the clothes but he neither stated when such enquiry was conducted nor filed and proved any enquiry report in this regard. On the other hand, perusal of a certified copy of Spot Map (Ex. A-3) prepared by the police shows that there was a long gap between alleged electric connection taken by defendant No.3 from back side of the house of plaintiffs and the said wire tied by plaintiffs in the courtyard (आँगन) of their house for drying clothes. In such situation, only because of plaintiffs’ version, who are rustic villagers and they have not stated specifically that, as to how electric current reached in the wire tied by them, particularly in lack of any enquiry conducted by the defendants-electric company, it cannot be held that electric current was flowing on the wire tied by plaintiffs in their house for drying clothes because 6 of its contact with alleged damaged electric wire taken by defendant No.3 from his house to his bicycle repairing shop. 12 Though there is no clear evidence brought by plaintiffs that as to how electric current was flowing in wire tied by them in their house but it has proved that plaintiffs were also having electric connection along with meter. In such situation, defendant -electric company ought to have examined the matter that as to how current was flowing in that wire tied in courtyard (आँगन) of house of plaintiffs, but no such enquiry has been conducted by defendant / electric company. In the cases of such liability, instead of negligency of other persons, liability of electric company / department have more thrust, as in the cases of such nature, liability of the company is ‘strict liability’. 13 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 : (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 hereinbelow:- “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 7 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, (1868) 3 HL330 : (1861/73) All ER Rep 1, Blackbur, J, the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision : (All ERp. 7E-F) “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. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari (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 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 8 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”. 14 In instant case, undisputedly the deceased died due to electrocution and plaintiffs were having valid electric connection in their house. Because of strict liability of defendant / electric company, they ought to have immediately examined the issue but they did not examine the cause as to how electric current was flowing in the wire tied by plaintiffs / deceased in their house for drying the clothes, as such, if there would have been any negligency of other persons, despite that, defendants No.1 & 2 cannot be exempted from their liability strict in nature, therefore, there is no valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment fastening liability upon the defendants 1 & 2 and as such to admit the instant appeal for further hearing. 15 In view of above discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, particularly in respect of fastening liability upon the appellants / defendants. 16 Accordingly, the first appeal filed by appellants/ defendants is rejected. 17 Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.03.28 11:05:18 +0530