1 2026:CGHC:20461-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal No. 223 of 2024 1 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl), Behind Rajkumar College, Danganiya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned Manager And Director) 2 - Executive Engineer (O And M) Division Csdpcl, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl) Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Now District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 3 - Assistant Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl) District Janjgir Champa Now District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 4 - Junior Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl) District Janjgir Champa Now District Sakti Chhattisgarh. … Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Geeta Bai Sidar Wd/o Late Damruram Sidar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sapnaipali Tehsil Sakti District Janjgir Champa Now District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 2 2 - Purnima Bai W/o Puniram Aged About 30 Years R/o Barduli Tehsil And P.S. Jaijaipur District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Uma Bai D/o Late Damruram Sidar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sapnaipali, Tehsil Sakti District Janjgir Champa Now District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Damruram Sidar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sapnaipali, Tehsil Sakti District Janjgir Champa Now District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 5 - Mahendra Kumar S/o Late Damruram Sidar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sapnaipali, Tehsil Sakti District Janjgir Champa Now District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sukhru S/o Balki Gond Aged About 75 Years S/o Late Damruram Sidar, R/o Village Sapnaipali, Tehsil Sakti District Janjgir Champa Now District Sakti Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board 01.05 .2026 3 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Appellants/Defendants have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 21/08/2024 passed by the 1st District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa in Civil Suit No. 5-B/2024 whereby the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,04,760/- along with an interest of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment has been granted in their favour for the death of Damruram Sidar on account of electrocution. (For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.) 2. The aforesaid challenge to the impugned judgment and decree has been made on the following factual backdrop :- (i) On 16/07/2019, deceased Damruram Sidar came in contact with the loose live wire and died on the spot on account of electrocution. 4 (ii) Plaintiffs, who are wife, four children and father of deceased Damruram Sidar, respectively, filed a suit seeking compensation of Rs. 24,00,000/- stating inter alia that at the time of death, deceased was aged about 55 years and he used to do carpentry work and also performed agricultural work and earned Rs. 12,000/- per month to fulfill the needs of his family/plaintiffs and respondents are responsible for the death of the deceased, therefore, they are liable for payment of compensation. (iii) Defendants filed their written statement jointly and opposed the averments made by the plaintiffs and stated that there was no negligence committed on the part of the defendants and the deceased himself was careless and negligent due to which he came into contact of the live wire and died due to electrocution, therefore, they are not liable for payment of compensation, if any. (iv) Learned trial Court, upon evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by impugned judgment and decree dated 21/08/2024 and granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,04,760/- in favour of the plaintiffs, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by which, the appellants/defendants have preferred the instant first appeal on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the deceased 5 and therefore, the trial Court has erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the defendants and moreover, the amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court to the plaintiffs is not just and proper and is on the higher side, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned trial Court framed 7 issues and answered them as stated below :- क्र वादप्रश्न निष्कर्ष 1 क्या, घटना दिना क 16/07/2019 क मृ तक डमृरू रामृ सिरा क मृहारा खरा स्थित खत मृ बिजली खम्  लीटक राहा एक फे  तरा जिजमृ बि$द्यु&त' करा ट प्र$बिहात हा राहा था, क  पक+ मृ आना  मृ त हुआ था ? प्रमृणि/त 2 क्या, मृ तक डमृरू रामृ सिरा क0 मृ त्या& प्रबित$2ग/ क लीपरा$हा ए$ मृ&सि4त खराख क अभा$ क करा/ हुया ? प्रमृणि/त 3 क्या, $2ग/ प्रबित$2ग/  क्षबितप8र्तित: रासि; प्रप्त कराना क अधि>करा हा? ? $2 क्र। 1 ए$ 3  6, प्रबित$2ग/   या&क्तB अथा$ प थाक्तB 10,04,760 रूपया (  लीख 4रा हाजरा त  ठ रूपया ) मृया ब्याज क्षबितप8र्तित: पना क अधि>करा हा? 4 हायात ए$ व्यया ? बिना/+या क0 क बिडक - 6 32 क अना&रा 4. In sum and substance, the trial Court has held that on 16/07/2019, the deceased Damruram Sidar came in contact of a live wire and died due to electrocution on account of rash and negligent act of the defendants and awarded Rs. 10,04,760/- as compensation in favour of plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 to 6. 5. Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that deceased Damruram Sidar died on account of electrocution because of gross negligence and carelessness of the defendants rather there was negligence on the part of the deceased, therefore, the trial Court has erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellants/defendants. He would further submit that the plaintiffs had not filed any document in support of proof of income of the deceased, therefore, the trial Court has erred in assessing his notional income and has granted a compensation which is not just and proper and is on the higher side, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 7 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. It is the case of the appellants/defendants that deceased Damruram Sidar died on account of his own negligence, however, the appellants/defendants were under obligation to make provision for safety and electrical supply as per Section 53 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter, “the Act of 2003”), which provides as under :- “53. Provision relating to safety and electricity supply. - The Authority may, in consultation with the State Government, specify suitable measures for - (a) protecting the public (including the persons engaged in the generation, transmission or distribution or trading) from dangers arising from the generation, transmission or distribution or trading of electricity, or use of electricity supplied or installation, maintenance or use of any electric line or electrical plant; (b) eliminating or reducing the risks of personal injury to any person, or damage to property of any person or interference with use of such property; (c) prohibiting the supply or transmission of electricity except by means of a system which conforms to the specifications as may be specified; (d) giving notice in the specified form to the Appropriate Commission and the Electrical Inspector, of accidents and failures of supplies or transmission of electricity; (e) keeping by a generating company or licensee the maps, plans and sections relating to supply or transmission of electricity; (f) inspection of maps, plans and sections by any person authorised by it or by Electrical Inspector or by any person on payment of specified fee; 8 (g) specifying action to be taken in relation to any electric line or electrical plant, or any electrical appliance under the control of a consumer for the purpose of eliminating or reducing the risk of personal injury or damage to property or interference with its use.” 8. Furthermore, Section 161 of the Act of 2003 which provides for notice of accidents and inquiries, states as under :- “161. Notice of accidents and inquiries. - (1) If any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may be general or special order, direct. (2) The Appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector, or any other person appointed by it in this behalf, to inquire and report - (a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, or (b) as to the manner in, and extent to, which the provisions of this Act or rules and regulations made thereunder or of any licence, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with. (3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub-section (2) shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and every person required by an 9 Electrical Inspector be legally bound to do so within the meaning of Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code.” 9. Thus, the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 2003 make it evidently clear that the appellants/defendants were under statutory obligation to take measures to ensure public safety and the accident leading to death of deceased Damruram Sidar is a failure on their part to comply with their statutory duty. 10. The Supreme Court, in the matter of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari 1 , a case relating to death by electrocution, has categorically held that the electricity company will be liable for damages even without proof of negligence and observed as under :- “14. The Privy Council has observed in Quebec Rly., Light, Head and Power Co. Ltd v. Vandry2 that the company supplying electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent. Even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account of a violent wind and high-tension current found its way through the low-tension cable into the premises of the respondents was held to be not a justifiable defence. Thus, merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road.” 11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it was the statutory obligation of the appellants/defendants to ensure public safety in view of the provision contained under Section 53 of the Act of 1 (2002) 2 SCC 162 2 1920 AC 662 10 2003 in which they have failed and the accident in which deceased Damruram Sidar died on account of electrocution shows gross negligence on the part of the appellants/defendants. Moreover, plaintiff Smt. Geeta Bai Sidar (P.w.-1) has clearly stated in her testimony before the Court that the defendants had used poor quality wires for granting electric connection to them and on 09/07/2019, the wire broke and fell on account of lightning and storm and deceased Damruram Sidar had even sent an application to the Junior Engineer of the Department for repairing the same but the defendants neither paid heed to his application nor came to repair the wire due to which the accident happened and Damruram Sidar died on account of electrocution, which has also been supported by Pradeep Kumar Jangde (PW-2). On the other hand, the defendants’ witness Junior Engineer Trilok Chand Patel (DW-1) has admitted in cross-examination that the work of maintenance, operation, security and supervision is carried out by the Electricity Department and it is evident from the record, that even though deceased had filed application (Ex. P/6) for repair work, yet no action had been taken by the defendants. As such, in light of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shail Kumari (supra), the trial Court, after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly held that 11 deceased Damruram Sidar died on account of electrocution due to gross negligence of the appellants/defendants and they are liable for payment of compensation to the plaintiffs. 12. So far as the quantum of compensation granted to the plaintiffs is concerned, learned trial Court, after consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has assessed the income of deceased Damruram Sidar as Rs. 8,400/- monthly which comes to Rs. 1,00,800/- yearly and granted 10% as future prospect and thereafter, made a deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses, thereby, assessing the loss of income as Rs. 83,160/- and then applied the multiplier of 11 due to which loss of dependency comes around to Rs. 9,14,760/- and further granted Rs. 15,000/- as loss of estate, Rs. 35,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium to his wife, has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,04,760/- in favour of plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 to 6 with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 23/06/2023 till the date of its realization, which in our considered opinion, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. We hereby affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and do not find any merit in the instant appeal. 12 13. Accordingly, this first appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 14. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Harneet