1 2025:CGHC:51598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR F.A No.114 of 2023 Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Division Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.1) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Seema Yadav Wd/o Lt. Kishanlal Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Girghora, P.S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Plaintiff No.1) 2 - Ku. Dhaan Yadav D/o Lt. Kishanlal Yadav Aged About 9 Years Through Legal Guardian Respondent No.1 Smt. Seema Yadav, R/o Village Girghora, P.S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Plaintiff No.2) 3 - Ku. Khemin Yadav D/o Lt. Kishanlal Yadav Aged About 7 Years Through Legal Guardian Respondent No.1 Smt. Seema Yadav, R/o Village Girghora, P.S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Plaintiff No.3) SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.10.17 11:07:29 +0530 2 4 - Ku. Devkumari D/o Lt. Kishanlal Yadav Aged About 4 Years Through Legal Guardian Respondent No.1 Smt. Seema Yadav, R/o Village Girghora, P.S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Plaintiff No.4) 5 - Tikeshwar S/o Lt. Kishanlal Yadav Aged About 3 Years Through Legal Guardian Respondent No.1 Smt. Seema Yadav, R/o Village Girghora, P.S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Plaintiff No.5) 6 - Collector District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Defendant No.2) ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent No.6/State : Shri DL Prajapati, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 16.10.2025 1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai in Civil Suit No.2-B/2019 whereby, on account of an electrocution death, the Appellant herein has been fastened with the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.8,57,500/- along with 6% interest per annum to Respondents No.1 to 5 i.e. legal heirs of deceased 3 Kishanlal Yadav, from the date of filing of the Civil Suit, within a period of 30 days. 2. Necessary facts for adjudication of the case are that a Suit was filed for compensation on account of death of Kishanlal Yadav, who was the husband of Respondent No.1-Smt Seema Yadav and father of Respondents No.2 to 5 due to electrocution on 09.10.2018 at 9.30 am at village Girghora, District Rajnandgaon. It has been averred in the plaint that the deceased had gone to the shop namely Janghel Fabrication to carry out welding work on an iron rod and while performing the said work, he came in contact with a live electric wire, as a result of which, he sustained an electric shock and fell unconscious on the spot. He was immediately taken to Chhuikhadan Hospital, where he was declared dead. It has been further averred that liability of the maintenance of live wire was on the Appellant. The case of the Claimants is that at the time of incident, the deceased was aged 30 years and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by carrying out decoration work and therefore, compensation has been claimed to the tune of Rs.30 lacs. It has also been claimed that merg intimation No.40/2018 has been registered at PS Chhuikhadan, Rajnandgaon. 3. In the written submission filed by Respondent No.1, the averments of the Plaint were denied to the effect that owner of 4 Janghel Fabrication ought to have been made a party and the alleged incident has occurred purely due to negligence attributable to the deceased and the Fabricator. The trial Court has framed as many as 4 issues and decided the case in favour of the Plaintiffs by applying principle of strict liability and fastened the liability against the Appellant and awarded compensation to the Claimants. 4. Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant No.1 submits that learned Court below has erred in awarding compensation as the initial burden lies on the Claimants and they had not discharged the same by proving that the high tension wire of 11 kilowatts installed at the spot was below the prescribed norms. He further submits that owner of the Fabrication shop is necessary party but he has not been arrayed as one and the trial Court has ipso facto wrongly drawn a presumption by applying the principle of strict liability. He lastly submits that he has not challenged the quantum, which has been determined by the trial Court and prays to allow the Appeal. 5. On the other hand, Shri Kotecha supports the impugned judgment and decree and submits that the defence, which was raised by the Appellant/Company was without any substance as the Company itself was responsible to maintain the electricity line and if the danger had exaggerated because of their negligence then it such case, it will be within the definition of actionable wrong 5 for which, learned Court below has rightly awarded the compensation. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and decree as also the entire record with utmost circumspection. 7. The principle of strict liability as propounded in the famous case of Ryland v. Fletcher reported in 1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330 lays down 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." Therefore, rule of strict liability essentially attaches the liability on the undertakers of the hazardous activities, to compensate for damages caused, irrespective of any carelessness on their part. The basis of liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of the activities. 8. The Apex Court as well as this Court has consistently held the electricity distribution companies strictly liable for any loss of life, limb or property resulting due to the supply and distribution of electricity and has awarded compensation to the victims and their families. In the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and others reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162, by applying the rule of strict liability, Apex Court awarded compensation to the widow and dependants of the deceased, who died due to electrocution by 6 coming in contact with a snapped live electric wire lying on the road. The Court made the following observation:- "7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily fonferred on the 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. 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 lookout 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 on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 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. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527, has laid down principle that exception to the doctrine of strict 7 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 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). 10. 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. 11. In light of the aforesaid principles, upon minute examination of the facts of the present case and the evidence adduced by both parties, it is found that the fact of electrocution having occurred due to contact of the deceased with a live electric wire, being run by the Electricity Department, has not been disputed. Respondent No.1/Claimant-Seema Yadav (PW-1) has also proved merg intimation 40/2018, which has been registered at PS Chhuikhadan for the aforesaid incident (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3), inquest report (Ex.P- 4), spot map (Ex.P-5), postmortem report (Ex.P-6) the statements of eye-witnesses to the incident (Ex.P-8 to ex.P-10), income certificate (Ex.P-11) and the death certificate (Ex.P-12). 8 12. From the aforesaid statements of the witnesses, it is explicit that the Electricity Company dealing with the hazardous work of supplying of electricity, has not made any proper arrangements to neutralize or control the power supply whenever any person comes in contact with the live wire, therefore, in such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Court below has rightly applied the principle of strict liability as the deceased died because of electrocution. 13. In view of above discussion, the argument, which has been raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant that the deceased has not died due to negligence on the part of the Electricity Department cannot be sustained and the said Department cannot escape the liability on this ground that no negligence was made by them. 14. After careful scrutiny of the evidence and finding of the trial Court, this Court reaches to the conclusion that the said Court has rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.8,57,500/- along with 6 % interest to the Claimants, who are the dependents of the deceased i.e. his wife and 4 minor children. 15. Consequently, this Appeal has no merit, which is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya