1 2025:CGHC:56959-DB The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full - 24-11-2025 - 25-11-2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 178 of 2025 1 - Managing Director Manager And Director CG State Power Distributing Company Limited, Behind Rajkumar College, Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. (Defendant No. 1) 2 - Executive Engineer, (Operation/commandation) Division CG State Power Distributing Company Limited Sakti, District Sakti C.G. (Defendant No. 2) 3 - Chief Electrical Inspector, CG State Power Distributing Company Limited Baron Bazar, Fountain Chowk Raipur, District Raipur C.G. (Defendant No. 3) … Appellants versus 1 - Shivkumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Ghasiyaram Yadav Aged About 40 Years (Plaintiff No. 1) 2 - Smt. Ramla Yadav W/o Shiv Kumar Yadav Aged About 37 Years 2 Both residents of Mandragondi, Thana And Tehsil Sakti, District Sakti C.G. (Plaintiff No. 2) ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Aastha Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ Judgment On Board (24th November, 2025) Per Rajani Dubey, J Heard on IA No.02, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 02. This appeal has been filed with a delay of 28 days. Upon due consideration, the application (IA No.02) is allowed and the said delay is hereby condoned. 03. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage itself. 04. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 24.3.2025 passed by the First District Judge, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No.18B/2024 whereby partly allowing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs, they are granted compensation of Rs.15,26,640/- with interest @ 6% pa from the date of filing of the suit till realization, fastening the liability upon the appellants/defendants. 05. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit stating that they are father and mother of deceased Neelkanth who died as a result of electrocution on 3 11.10.2022. It was averred that on the date of incident Neelkanth Yadav had gone to the house of one Mukesh Tandaon to attend the Chhatti function where orchestra was being played and for that Mukesh Tandon had taken electricity connection from a nearby government borewell’s service line. The said electric wire had many cuts. When Neelkanth came in contact with it, he suffered electrocution and died. As the incident occurred due to negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants in maintaining the supply of electricity and ensuring safety of the public, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit and claimed compensation of Rs.62,98,000/- from the appellants/defendants as the deceased was an agriculturist and earning Rs.12,000/- pm from it. 06. The appellants/defendants in their written statement contended that all the necessary parties have not been arrayed by the plaintiffs. There is no negligence on the part of the defendants and in relation to this incident, offence u/s 304A of IPC and 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act has been registered against Mukesh Tandon. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost. Likewise, defendant No.3 in his written statement stated that enquiry report has been forwarded to the higher authorities. During enquiry it was found that the said incident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of Mukesh Tandon who had illegally hooked a wire with the government borepump’s service line, therefore, defendant No.3 is not directly or indirectly responsible paying any compensation for this incident. 07. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties the learned trial Court framed issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence partly allowed the suit, thereby granting compensation of Rs.15,26,640/- with 4 interest @ 6% pa from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Hence this appeal. 08. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the impugned judgment is bad on facts as well as law and hence liable to be set aside. Since the incident occurred as a result of illegal hooking of electricity connection from the government borewell service line, there is no negligence on the part of the appellants making them liable for compensating the respondents/plaintiffs. In fact, it is Mukesh Tandon and the deceased himself who were negligent and responsible for this unfortunate incident. Therefore, offence u/s 304A of IPC and 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act has been registered against Mukesh Tandon. This apart, the deceased was only 16 years of age and was himself dependent upon the respondents but the learned trial court erroneously held him an earning member of the family without there being any evidence in this regard. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside/modified suitably. 09. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supporting the impugned judgment and decree submits that the learned trial Court upon due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly held the appellants liable for paying compensation of Rs.15,26,640/- to them and being so, there is no need to interference with the same. The appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other material available with the appeal. 5 11. Learned trial Court based on the pleadings of the respective parties framed following issues for adjudication: ्ቅ. वाद्ቚ्቞ निष्क्ቧ 1. क्या, घटना दिना क 11/10/2022 क ቇኋम म गो़ቢ अं तगोत थाना सक्त, जिला सक्त छ.गो. मक श ट डना क घर ठेला चौ"क क पास ቝኌ%त शसक&या बोर क सብኌ)*स )यार स टपा अं्ቤ)ቝኌ%त कट छिछला तर जिसम- वि)ቕ኎त कर-ट ्ቚ)वि1त 1 र1 था, क स पाक म- आना स वि)ቕ኎त क रट लागोना स म3तक नालाक ठे या) क& म3त्या करिरत हुया? "्ቚमणि8त" 2. क्या म3तक नालाक ठे या) क& वि)ቕ኎त कर ट स हुया म3त्या, अंना)क ्ቅम क 1 स 3 क ቛኋर वि)ቕ኎त आपा;ብኌत* स स बो धि=त खरख ए) लापार)1 क पारिर8म था? "्ቚमणि8त" 3. या1 1 , त क्या अंना)क ्ቅम क 1 स 3 स ्ቌवितपा;ብኌत* रछिश ्ቚप्त करना क अंधि=कर 1B? यादि 1C त विकस अंना)क स और विकतना रछिश ? ")गो8, ्ቚवित)गो8 स 15,26,640/- रूपाया (पान््ቖ1 लाख छब्बोस 1र छI स" चौलास रूपाया) मया ब्या ्ቌवितपा;ብኌत* पाना क अंधि=कर 1J" 4. स1यात ए) ्ቤया ? विना8या क& क विडक-40 क अंनासर 12. While deciding Issue No.2, learned trial Court found that the appellants/defendants failed to prevent electricity theft and maintain the electricity line which resulted in death of the deceased due to electrocution. 13. This Court while dealing with similar issue in FA No.85/2023 in the matter of CG Rajya Vidhyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. Vs. State of CG and others, observed in para 15 of its judgment dated 20.11.2024 as under: “15. In the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 162, the Supreme Court applied the principle of strict liability, which holds that a person or organization engaged in a 6 hazardous activity is liable for any harm caused, regardless of fault or negligence. In para 8 of its judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "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." 14. Learned trial Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in CG State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. Hemlata Netam, (2022) 3 CGLJ 547 and rightly found that the appellants/defendants are liable to pay compensation for the death of Neelkanth due to electrocution. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants referring to the circular dated 10.9.2018 issued by the CG State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Danganiya, Raipur in which some provision has been made for giving compensation in the event of death due to electrocution, contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by learned trial Court is on the higher side and needs to be reduced suitably. 7 16. Learned trial Court while deciding Issue No.3, taking into account various judgments of this Court as also of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, assessed the notional income of the deceased and considering his age, applied multiplier of 18 and thus, calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.14,66,640/-. Further, the learned trial court awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. Having gone through the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on the issue of quantum of compensation in light of various judicial pronouncements holding the field, we find no illegality or infirmity in it warranting any interference by this Court. 17. For the reasons stated above, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is thus dismissed. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.11.25 10:05:37 +0530