1 FA No. 168 of 2024 2025:CGHC:47384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 168 of 2024 Reserved on 29-8-2025 Delivered on 16-9-2025 1. Managing Director, C.S.P.D.C.L Behind Rajkumar College, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Executive Director Bilaspur Tifra, C.S.P.D.C.L., District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Junior Engineer (O And M) Division C.S.P.D.C.L., Sakti, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4. Line Inspector (O And M) Division C.S.P.D.C.L., Malkhaurada, Thana And Tehsil Malkhaurada, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) All are Represented Through Officer-In-Charge On Behalf Of The Department, Executive Engineer (O And M) Division, C.S.P.D.C.L., Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellants/Defendants versus 1. Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Late Shri Chitrabhan Aged About 40 Years 2. Amisha D/o Late Shri Chitrabhan Aged About 20 Years 3. Samiksha D/o Late Shri Chitrabhan Aged About 18 Years 4. Pratiksha D/o Late Shri Chitrabhan Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Shantibai All R/o Village Pikripar, Thana And Tehsil Malkhaurada, District Janjgir- Champa(C.G.) (Plaintiffs/Claimants) 5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Defendant No. 5) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 For Respondent No.5 : : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Mr. Santosh Soni, G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) C A V Judgment 1. Heard on I.A. No.4/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing 2 FA No. 168 of 2024 cross appeal. 2. Learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondents herein No. 1 to 4 submits that plaintiffs/ claimants are poor villagers and they were having no source of income, as earning member of their family died because of electrocution, therefore, they could not make contact with counsel to file the cross appeal within time. He further submits that delay of 10 months occurred in filing the cross appeal is bonafide and it may be condoned. 3. Learned counsel for appellant raised objection to the above application. 4. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned, delay in filing cross appeal is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No.4/2025 is allowed. 5. Also heard on I.A. No.5/2025, application for exemption from payment of Court fee, under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act. 6. The issue with regard to payment of Court fee, in the cases of death by electrocution has been dealt with by learned Division Bench of this Court in FA No.63 of 2021 in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited vs. Smt. Hemlata Netam & others and it has been settled that “claim made in death case, which occurred owing to electrocution would be exempted from Court fees pursuant to notification dated 02.8.1986.” Since this case relates to death by electrocution, I.A. No.5/2025 is allowed, in the light of above cited judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and respondents/ plaintiffs are exempted from filing Court fee in cross appeal. 7. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is 3 FA No. 168 of 2024 heard finally. 8. The appellants/defendants have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (for brevity “CPC”) calling in question the legality, validity, and correctness of judgment and decree dated 13.02.2024 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter called as ‘trial Court’) in Civil Suit No.04B/2021 whereby, the learned trial Court has partly allowed the civil suit of the respondents/plaintiffs and granted compensation to the plaintiffs/ respondents herein to the tune of 4,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of ₹ civil suit i.e. 02.08.2021 till its realization. (hereinafter, parties shall be referred as per their description before the trial Court) 9. Brief facts of the case, are that, respondents/plaintiffs being a wife and daughters of late Chitrabhan (since deceased), filed a civil suit for grant of compensation, stating inter-alia that on 06.05.2021 at about 9:00 pm, deceased after taking bath went outside his house to hang his wet clothes on the bamboo stick to get it dry and while hanging his clothes on bamboo stick, he sustained severe electric shock, due to which he became unconscious and fell on the floor. Thereafter, he was taken to the Govt. Hospital, Malkharouda, where he was declared dead by the Doctors. It has been further pleaded that the employees of defendant No.1 have installed the electric meter outside the door of the deceased’s house, service wires of which were sagged and damaged at several points; and despite repeated oral requests made 4 FA No. 168 of 2024 by the deceased to the Electricity department for its repair and replacement, no attention was paid. Owing to such negligence, the deceased met with an untimely death, for which the defendants No. 1 to 4 are responsible. It is further averred that deceased was a contractual labour and his monthly income was 10,000/-. His ₹ sudden death has caused irreparable loss to the plaintiffs and same has created economic and mental hardship for them. Plaintiffs No.1/wife of the deceased has been deprived of marital companionship and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 has been deprived of love and support of their father. As a result of which, the plaintiffs preferred the civil suit for grant of compensation on various head to the tune of 28,90,000/-. ₹ 10. The defendants No. 1 to 4 filed their written statement denying all the adverse pleading made against them and pleaded inter-alia that the deceased himself, while negligently and carelessly attempting to put his wet clothes to get it dry on live electric wire, met with the aforesaid accident and died. It is further pleaded that electric connection, in question, installed at the residence of the deceased was unauthorized, and the same had not been sanctioned by the defendants/ Electricity Department. As such, the alleged accident cannot be attributed to any negligence on the part of the defendants, hence, the civil suit deserves to be dismissed. 11.On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court has framed as many as 3 issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and after considering the evidence and contention of learned counsel for the parties, partly allowed the civil suit granting decree in 5 FA No. 168 of 2024 favour of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4 and directed appellants/defendants No.1 to 4 to pay compensation to the tune of 4,00,000/- to the plaintiffs along with interest @6% per annum. ₹ Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, appellants/defendants filed the instant first appeal. However, cross appeal has also been filed by respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the trial Court for enhancement of compensation amount. 12. Mr. Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, would submit that the trial Court has erred in granting compensation to the plaintiffs by recording perverse findings to the facts of the case. Alleged accident occurred solely due to the deceased’s own negligent act of hanging wet clothes on a live electric wire, hence, liability cannot be fastened on the appellants/ defendants. He would next submit that while partly allowing the civil suit filed by respondents/ plaintiffs, the learned trial Court wrongly relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari reported in [2002 ACJ 526 : (AIR 2002 SC 551)], which is inapplicable, as in that case there was no negligence on the part of deceased. The present case falls within the exception to the doctrine of strict liability, since there was negligence on the part of deceased whereby regardless of the condition of the wire, he ought not to have hanged wet clothes nearby a live electric wire. He would next submit that plaintiffs have failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased and also age of the deceased has not be proved by the plaintiffs, therefore, the multiplier 6 FA No. 168 of 2024 could not be applied and being an old age, future prospect should not be granted to the plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree be set-aside by allowing the instant appeal and civil suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed. 13. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, would support the impugned judgment to the extent of grant of compensation and pray for enhancement of the compensation amount. He would also submit that though the several oral complaints were made by the deceased with regard to status of wires of electricity connection, no action was taken by defendants/appellants and therefore, due to ignorance and negligent act of defendants, Chitrbhan died and plaintiffs suffered irreparable loss, as such, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. He would next submit that it was admitted by the appellants/ defendants themselves that electric wire drawn from pole was cut at several points and had sagged. He would also submit that learned trial Court after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, granted compensation to the plaintiffs, but, the awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- is on the lower side for which plaintiffs have filed cross appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure for enhancement of compensation amount. He would also submit that the learned trial Court ought to have considered that there are judgments of the Hon’ble Court to the effect that proper multiplier as per provision of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is to be applied and future prospects ought to have been calculated. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of notification issued by the Labour 7 FA No. 168 of 2024 Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur for the period from 01.4.2021 to 30.9.2021, the minimum wage for an unskilled worker employed in agriculture has been fixed at Rs. 7845/- per month, but, had not calculated the compensation on the basis of assessed income and has also not assess loss of estate, funeral expenses, future prospect, loss of love and affection, therefore, the cross appeal filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents for enhancement of compensation amount may be allowed and accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 13.2.2024 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.4B/2021 be modified in the interest of justice. 14. Learned State counsel submits that, State is a formal party in this case. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records precisely. 16. Shanti Bai (PW1), who is wife of deceased, has deposed that on 06.5.2021 at about 9 P.M., deceased after coming back from work, took bath and went outside the house to hang his wet clothes, and while placing the wet clothes on a bamboo stick, he came in contact with an electric current, as service wire coming from electric pole to electric meter was damaged at several points and had sagged also consequently, deceased fell unconscious on the ground. Thereafter, he was taken to the Govt. Hospital, Malkharouda, where he was declared dead by the Doctors. It is also deposed by her that a domestic electricity connection was installed by the Electricity Department/ defendants at the residential premises of deceased and 8 FA No. 168 of 2024 the electric meter is situated outside the door of house of deceased. It is further deposed that the Electricity Department had drawn a service wire from the electric pole and connected it to the meter which was sagged and also damaged at several places. Despite repeated oral requests made by the deceased to the Electricity Department, Malkharouda, to repair the said wires and also for replacement of the wires, no attention was paid. Owing to such negligence, the deceased met with an untimely death, for which the defendants No. 1 to 4/ appellants herein are responsible. The deposition of the plaintiff No.1/ wife is well supported by the PW-2 Dilchand. 17. Khagesh Kumar Netam (DW-1), the Assistant Engineer posted in the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company, Adbhaar, has deposed that deceased had taken unauthorized connection in his house. In this regard defendants have also filed Savingram, enquiry report Ex. D 1 to D 9, but, author of aforesaid document has not been examined by the defendants, hence, it cannot be relied upon as it has not been proved. Suggestion taken with regard to aforesaid fact has been denied by the plaintiff / Shanti Bai (PW1) in her cross- examination, though, she has not filed electricity bill or any such document that electric connection was provided to them by the defendants, but, she has specifically deposed that electric meter was also installed outside their house and service wire was drawn by defendants from electric pole to that electric meter. This fact has also been supported by PW-2 Dilchand. 18. Undisputedly, deceased died because of electrocution while hanging his wet clothes on the bamboo stick, outside his house, for get it dry 9 FA No. 168 of 2024 as service wire drawn from electric pole to electric meter, which was sagged and damage at several points, came in contact with the bamboo stick. However, whether said electric connection, provided in the house of deceased was by the defendants or it was unauthorized connection, is not clear from the evidence available on the record. But, it has also not been proved by the defendants that earlier, any complaint was registered or report was lodged under the Electricity Act, 2003 (henceforth referred as ‘the Act, 2003) against the deceased with regard to getting alleged unauthorized or illegal electric connection. If it would have been unauthorized connection, then, it was the duty of line man and other employees of Electricity Department to conduct regular inspection of electric line and remove such unauthorized connection and make complaint in this regard under the Act, 2003, and lodged criminal case against the deceased before the Special Court constituted under the Act, 2003. But, no such act has been done by the defendants and its employee, therefore, it cannot be held proved that it was unauthorized connection. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 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 10 FA No. 168 of 2024 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 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 11 FA No. 168 of 2024 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 Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 : (AIR 2002 SC 551), 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 absolutely liable to compensate those who are 12 FA No. 168 of 2024 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”. 20. This Court in the case of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. & Another vs. Smt. Bahgwati Bai in FA No.198 of 2003 decided on 16.6.2014 while considering judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of death by electrocution has held in paras 9 to 11 as under: (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. 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 13 FA No. 168 of 2024 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:- “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 14 FA No. 168 of 2024 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. 21. In the light of aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if facts of instant case are examined, then, as has been observed in preceding paragraphs that deceased died due to electrocution while hanging his wet clothes to get it dry on the bamboo stick, outside of his house, got electrocuted, as the bamboo stick came in contact with a live electric wire drawn from electric pole to electric meter situated outside the house, as it was sagged and damaged also. Though, Khagesh Kumar Netam (DW-1), Assistant Engineer in the Electricity Department, Adbhaar, has deposed that deceased was hanging his wet clothes upon the damaged and sagged service wire, as such, he died because of his own negligence, but to substantiate the aforesaid fact, no other evidence has been adduced by the defendants. Rather, as per plaintiff’s witness deceased was hanging his wet clothes upon the bamboo stick, outside of his house, which had came in contact with damaged and sagged service wire. Therefore, aforesaid contention of defendant witness cannot be held to be proved. Further, as per enquiry report 15 FA No. 168 of 2024 and documents annexed with it (Annexure D 1 to D 9) officials of defendants first time visited the place of accident on 16.9.2021 i.e., after more than four months from the date of accident, which itself is sufficient to discard their defense, as facts collected by them were received after four months from the accident. Even otherwise, how a person can hang wet clothes directly upon the live electric wire, which seems to be wholly unnatural. On this ground also statement of defendant witness cannot be relied upon. 22. As as has been observed in preceding paragraphs that the defendants have never made any complaint or lodged FIR against the deceased prior to instant accident, stating that he had taken unauthorized electric connection and further if it was so, then it was the duty of defendants and their employees to remove such unauthorized connection and prevent common men to take such illegal connections, but, this duty was not fulfilled by the defendants and its employees, hence, it has been rightly held by the trial Court that since defendants have not fulfilled their duties to protect life of human being by taking appropriate steps to evade such hazardous act of energy which is potentially of dangerous dimension they are liable to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy, as such, deceased died because of negligence of defendants. As the concept of ‘strict liability’ is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. 23. So far as the assessment of compensation granted by trial Court is concerned, this Court relies upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. 16 FA No. 168 of 2024 Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. According to the evidence available on record, on the date of incident, the deceased was aged about 55-60 years and was working as a labour, learned trial Court has assessed monthly income of deceased to be 7,845/-, as per the minimum wage declared by the ₹ Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur for the period from 01.4.2021 to 30.9.2021, as such, annual income of deceased has been directly assessed to be 94,140/-. As the deceased was aged ₹ about 55-60 years, at the time of accident and he was self-employed person, therefore, as per dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 10% is to be added towards future prospect, then, deceased's annual income would be 1,03,554/- [ 94,140 + ₹ ₹ 9,414/-]. Further, looking to the fact that the unfortunate widow Smt. ₹ Shanti Bai and her three children have filed civil suit before the trial Court for grant of compensation, therefore, in light of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Supra) , in which, it has been held that where the deceased is married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th if dependents family members are 4 to 6, as such, the trial Court has not erred in deducting 1/4th income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 24. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the deceased’s annual dependency would be 77,665.5/- [ ₹ ₹ 1,03,554 - 25,888.5/-]. So far as loss of dependency is concerned, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Supra), by applying the multiplier of 9, loss of dependency worked 17 FA No. 168 of 2024 out to ₹ 6,98,989.5/-. Apart from above, the trial Court has not awarded any amount towards conventional heads. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to award amount of 70,000/- as lump-sum towards conventional ₹ heads (i.e., for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses). 25. In view of above, the plaintiffs’ are held entitled for compensation as per column 4 of the following table :- Serial No. (1) Head (2) Awarded by the trial Court (3) Awarded by this Court (4) 1. Income of the deceased ₹ 94,140/- (per annum) ₹ 94,140/- (per annum) 2. Future Prospect Not awarded [+ ] 10% of the annual income = 9414/- ,Total ₹ income = 94140 + ₹ ₹ 9414/- = 1,03,554/- ₹ 3. ¼ deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased ₹ 94140 - 23535 = ₹ 70,605/- ₹ ₹ 1,03,554- ₹25,888.5 = ₹77,665.5/- 4. Annual loss of dependency ₹ 70,605/- ₹ 77,665.5/- 5. Multiplier of 9 for assessing total loss of dependency Not applied multiplier ₹ 77,665.5/- x 9= ₹ 6,98,989.5 /- 6. Towards conventional heads Not awarded ₹ 70,000/- (lump-sum) 7. Total Compensation ₹4,00,000/- (lump-sum amount of compensation) ₹ 7,68,990/- 26. Thus, the plaintiffs’ would become entitled for ₹7,68,990/- as compensation in place of 4,00,000/- ₹ as awarded by the trial Court. 18 FA No. 168 of 2024 27. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹4,00,000/- awarded by the trial Court is enhanced to ₹7,68,990/-. Hence, after adjustment of the amount of 4,00,000/- ₹ awarded by the trial Court, the defendants/appellants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of 3,68,990/-. ₹ The defendants are directed to deposit the amount of compensation before the trial Court as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ submission of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of civil suit i.e. 02.08.2021 till its actual realization. Thereafter, the trial Court shall disburse the same to the plaintiffs/respondents herein. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 28. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellants/ defendants stands dismissed and cross-appeal filed by respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs stands allowed to the above extent. No order as to cost(s). 29. A decree be drawn up accordingly. 30. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SD/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Ayushi AYUSHI SINGH Digitally signed by AYUSHI SINGH Date: 2025.09.17 11:35:06 +0530