2025:CGHC:58701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 290 of 2015 1 - Secretary - Cum - President Wrongly Mentioned As Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd; Danganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh.............Defendant No. 1 2 - Chief Engineer Rajnandgaon Area Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh........Defendant No. 2 3 - Superintending Engineer Rajnandgaon Unit Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. G. E. Road, New Bus Stand Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon, CG.....… Defendant No. 3 4 - Executive Engineero And M Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. G. E. Road, New Bus Stand Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh........Defendant No. 4 ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Jhamit Patel W/o Late Shri Vijay Patel, Aged About 35 Years 2 - Ku. Ekta Patel D/o Late Shri Vijay Patel, Aged About 17 Years Minor 3 - Ku. Divya Patel D/o Late Shri Vijay Patel, Aged About 15 Years Minor 4 - Ku. Jyoti Patel D/o Late Shri Vijay Patel, Aged About 12 Years Minor, 5 - Meghraj Patel S/o Late Shri Vijay Patel, Aged About 10 Years Minor, 2 to 4 Minors Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jhamit Patel, W/o Late Shri Vijay Patel All R/o Ward No. 15, Tulsipur, Sangam Chowk, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.......Plaintiffs 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.........Defendant No. 5, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents /Defendants (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants/Defendants 1 to 4 : Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, PL For Respondents/ Plaintiffs- 1 to 5 : Shri BP Singh, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.12.19 17:11:13 +0530 Fa 290 of 2015 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 03.12.2025 1. Present First Appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 to 4 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.08.2015 (Annexure A1), passed by the learned District Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No.2B of 2013, whereby a decree for compensation of Rs.7,40,000/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit has been passed in favour of the plaintiffs against death of deceased Vijay Patel due to electrocution on 06.04.2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, status of the parties shown in the suit are being taken in the present appeal also. 3. The plaintiffs had filed Civil Suit claiming compensation of Rs.36,00,000/- against the defendants for death of deceased-Vijay Patel, husband of plaintiff- 1, and father of plaintiffs-2 to 5, who died on 06.04.2012 due to electrocution. It is pleaded in the plaint that on 06.04.2012 at about 7 pm, there was thunder storm, and disconnection of electricity power in the village. Disconnection of electricity power continued for considerable period, and the deceased came out of his house to know about the reason. When he reached near electricity transformer, he came in contact with live electric wire, which was broken down due to thunder storm, having running electric current, by which he received injuries, and on the way to hospital, he breath his last. He was declared brought dead by the doctors in the hospital. The deceased was the bread winner of his family, having four children, and wife, who died at the age of 36 years. Fa 290 of 2015 3 4. Plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit for compensation claiming that deceased was a skilled white washer, engaged in construction work of the house for white washing, and earning Rs.400/- per day from his occupation. By the death of the deceased, his family members are suffering from starvation, as there is no source of income, and they were dependents on the deceased. After service of legal notice on 09.12.2012, claimed Rs.36,00,000/- on various heads as compensation. 5. Defendants-1 to 4 have filed their written statement, denied the claim of the plaintiffs, and pleaded that due to thunder storm, there was no distribution of electricity current in the feeder line, and the electric wire was also broken down due to fall of tree over the electric line. The department was trying to repair the electricity line, and during that period, they came to know about the incident, and they immediately disconnected the electricity supply. When the employee of the department went on the spot, they found that the service connection to the house of the deceased was also came down due to fall of roof sunshade (chajja), and the deceased was trying to pull the electric wire, and at that time, deceased came into contact with live electric current, and ultimately, he died. There was no negligence on the part of defendants-1 to 4, and it was only the act of God, and various electricity lines were disconnected, and broken down. The deceased died due to his own negligence, and no liability can be fasten upon the defendants. They also denied income of the deceased, and his occupation, and submitted that excess amount has been claimed by the plaintiffs. 6. Defendant-5/State remained ex parte throughout the proceeding. Fa 290 of 2015 4 7. Learned trial Court has framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties, which read as under: dzekad okniz’u fu"d"kZ 1- D;k fnukad 06- 4-12 dks rqylhnkl {ks= jktukanxkao esa izfroknhx.k ds }kjk mis{kkiw.kZ o ykijokgh iw.kZ rjhds ls fo|qr izokg pkyw fd;k x;k \ ाሺ 2- D;k mijksDr d`R; ds ifj.kke Lo:i fot; iVsy dh rkj ls djsaV yxus ds dkj.k e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ \ ाሺ 3- D;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls okafNr {kfriwfrZ ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS \ oknhx.k] izfr- dza- 1 yxk;r 4 ls la;qDrr% vFkok&i`Fkd :i ls 7]40]000/-:i;sizfrdj izkIr djuss ds vf/kdkjhgSA 4- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;; fu.kZ; ds vafre dafMdk 13 ds vuqlkj okn Lohdkj fd;k x;kA 8. Before the learned trial Court, plaintiffs have examined PW-1 Smt Jhamit Patel, PW2- Nandkishore, PW3-Pramjeet Kaur, PW4- Yogendra Sahu, and PW5- Sanjay, and relied upon Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 in support of their claim, which are the income certificate, BPL Ration Card of the plaintiffs. Mark-sheets of plaintiffs, Merg intimation, Postmortem report of the deceased, and legal notice to the defendants. 9. Defendants have examined DW1-Ashish Banerjee, and relied upon Ex.D1 to D5, which are the reports of electricity accident, spot Map, statement of the witnesses, and also the reply to the notice. Fa 290 of 2015 5 10. Learned trial Court, based on the pleading of the parties, and after recording their evidence, decided the issues holding that defendants- 1 to 4 are negligent in maintaining electricity line due to which, deceased-vijay Patel died by electrocution, and plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of Rs.7,40,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs for the said amount, fastening liability upon defendants 1 to 4 to pay the compensation to the plaintiff, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants-1 to 4 would submit that the incident took place due to negligent act of the deceased himself. Defendants-1 to 4 are required to maintain the electric lines, however, due to act of God, and thunder storms, electric wires /lines were broken down, and during its repairing work, and to check the supply of current, deceased tried to remove the electric service line which was running from the electric pole to his house from the broken piece of chajja, which too came on the ground, and in that period, he came into contact of that electric current and ultimately died. There is no negligence on the part of defendants 1 to 4. There is no evidence to the effect that respondents 1 to 4 are at fault, or there is any negligence on their part. It was also submitted that learned trial Court erroneously considered the quantum of compensation, which is on the higher side. Though the claimants have claimed Rs.12,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, however, learned trial Court comes into conclusion that the deceased monthly income was Rs.5,000/-. The incident was of the year 2012, and at that time, minimum wages prevailing was less than Rs.5,000/-, and in absence of any documentary evidence with respect to income of the deceased, minimum wages prevailing at that time should have been taken into consideration, and Fa 290 of 2015 6 thereby learned trial Court committed an error in considering Rs.5,000/-as monthly income of the deceased, without any basis. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside/modified. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would support the impugned judgment and submitted that judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court needs no interference by this court. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record. 14. The plaintiffs have filed the Civil Suit for compensation of Rs.36,00,000/- on account of death of deceased-Vijay Patel, husband of plaintiff-1 and father of plaintiffs-2 to 5 due to electrocution. 15. From overall evidence available on record produced by either plaintiffs, or defendants, it appears that on the date of incident, there was thunder storm, by which the electricity line was broken down, chajja (roof sunshade) of house of the plaintiffs was also broken down, under which, service line from the electric pole to the house of the deceased was came on the ground. Electricity current was off for a considerable time, and when the deceased came out from his house, and tried to pull the electric wire from the chajja, he came into contact with the electric current, and ultimately, died. When the electric current was off for a considerable period, how supply of current started all of a sudden, was to be explained by defendants-1 to 4, and the DW1, who is the Assistant Engineer/Shift Engineer of defendants-1 to 4, could not explain the same. He admitted in para-12 of his evidence that at that time, power was set off, and there was electric wires broken down at various places. When the Fa 290 of 2015 7 power was off for a considerable period, despite that, deceased came into contact with live electric current, it was for defendants 1 to 4 to keep the power off till proper repairing of electric line, which was broken down due to thunder storm, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no negligence on the part of defendants in the incident. 16. In the mater of MP Electricity Board Vs Shair Kumar and others, AIR 2002 SC 551, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: “7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred 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 look out 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 Fa 290 of 2015 8 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 i.e. 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.” 17. In the matter of Union of India Vs Prabhakaran vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para-24 of its judgment as under: “24.The basis of the doctrine of strict liability is two fold (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).” 18. Keeping in view the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the evidence available on record, this Court finds no illegality, or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned trial court, holding that defendants- 1 to 4 are liable to pay Fa 290 of 2015 9 compensation to the plaintiffs for death of Vijay Patel, who died due to electrocution. 19. As regards the quantum of compensation, learned trial Court considered monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month, and after deducting 1/4th {5000- (5000 x1/4) = 3750} of his monthly income towards his personal expenses, yearly dependency of the plaintiffs was considered as Rs.45,000/- (3750 x 12). Learned trial Court has also considered age of the deceased as 37 years, as it reflected from the postmortem report, Ex.P4, and applied multiplier of 15, thus, total amount assessed as dependency is Rs.6,75,000/- (45000 x 15). By adding Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/-for loss of consortium, and Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.7,40,000/- (675000 + 15000 + 25000 + 25000). 20. Though the appellants/defendants would submit that at the time of incident, prevailing minimum wages was less than Rs.5,000/-, however, from perusal of minimum wages chart prevailing in between 01.04.2012, till 30.09.2012, monthly income of the unskilled labour was considered as Rs.4,498/-, which is almost same as considered by the learned trial Court as monthly income of the deceased. 21. Monthly income considered by the trial Court cannot be said to be either arbitrary, or perverse in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 22. Considering nature of job, age, liability upon the deceased towards his family, compensation awarded to the plaintiffs cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive, and thus, I do not find any scope for interference in the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs. Fa 290 of 2015 10 23. Accordingly, the first appeal filed by the appellants/defendants does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, warranting interference by this Court. 24. Appeal being devoid of merit, liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. 25. Parties to bear their own costs, and decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma