Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms the application of strict liability in electrocution deaths caused by live wires managed by electricity authorities, holding that proof of negligence is unnecessary; reinforces Supreme Court and High Court precedents and serves as binding authority on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh for hazardous activities involving public utilities.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/114/2023 of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs SMT. SEEMA YADAV |
| CNR | CGHC010230272023 |
| Date of Registration | 24-07-2023 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Tort Law, Civil Liability—compensation for wrongful death by electrocution (strict liability, public utility) |
| Questions of Law | Whether electricity supply authorities are strictly liable for electrocution deaths caused by live wires, even absent proof of negligence on their part. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that electricity companies, as undertakers of hazardous activities, are strictly liable for injuries/deaths resulting from live wires under their control, regardless of proved negligence. Relying on Rylands v. Fletcher and Supreme Court authorities, it reaffirmed that such undertakings must compensate for foreseeable risks inherent in supplying electricity. The presence or absence of direct negligence is not decisive when applying strict liability. Examining the evidence, the Court concluded that the deceased died due to contact with a live electric wire managed by the defendant, and dismissed the argument that absence of negligence exempts the company from liability. The judgment thus upholds trial court application of strict liability to electricity authorities in fatal electrocution cases. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Deceased died by electrocution in 2018 after coming in contact with a live wire while welding in a fabrication shop. Claimants alleged maintenance responsibility rested with the electricity company. Defendant denied negligence and argued non-joinder of the fabrication shop owner; trial court ruled for the plaintiffs, awarding compensation under strict liability. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that electricity distribution companies have strict (no-fault) liability in electrocution cases, irrespective of any negligence proved.
- Invokes and applies Supreme Court precedents directly to deny any defence based solely on lack of negligence.
- Clarifies that the primary responsibility for live wire safety rests with the electricity supplier; arguments based on non-joinder of other parties or contributory negligence cannot absolve them from liability.
- Confirms compensation for dependents of electrocution victims is enforceable under strict liability against public utilities.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by outlining the factual matrix: electrocution death due to contact with a live wire, with the electricity company’s maintenance responsibility at issue.
- It reaffirmed the principle of strict liability as established in Rylands v. Fletcher, making undertakers of hazardous activities (like electricity supply) liable for damage caused by “escape” of dangerous substances (here, electricity).
- The Court cited Supreme Court authority in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, confirming that electricity suppliers cannot escape liability even if all reasonable care was taken; such hazardous activities inherently demand strict liability.
- The rationale highlighted: hazardous undertakings must bear the cost of the risks they create, and this furthers the public interest in compensation and risk distribution.
- Examining the evidence, the Court noted that the occurrence of death due to a live wire was proven, and no effective safety mechanism was shown to exist.
- Arguments concerning lack of negligence, or the fabrication shop owner’s supposed liability, were dismissed as irrelevant to strict liability.
- The suit for compensation by dependents was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Electricity Authority):
- Contended trial court erred in awarding compensation because claimants failed to prove the high-tension wire was below prescribed norms.
- Asserted the fabrication shop owner was a necessary party and should have been impleaded.
- Argued that the incident was due to negligence of the deceased and/or the fabrication shop, not the electricity department, and presumption of strict liability was wrongly drawn.
- Did not challenge the quantum of compensation.
Respondents (Claimants):
- Supported trial court’s application of strict liability to electricity company.
- Stated electricity supply company was responsible for maintaining live wires, and their negligence made them liable.
- Affirmed company was strictly liable for compensation due to hazardous activity and resulting electrocution.
Factual Background
The deceased, Kishanlal Yadav, died on 09.10.2018 by electrocution while performing welding work at a fabrication shop in Village Girghora. He came into contact with a live electric wire supplied and maintained by the appellant electricity authority. His legal heirs (wife and minor children) filed a civil suit for compensation, citing the electricity department’s duty to safely maintain live wires. The claimants asserted monthly earnings of Rs. 30,000 for the deceased and sought Rs. 30 lakhs. The trial court applied strict liability, ruling in favor of the claimants and awarding compensation with interest.
Statutory Analysis
- No specific statutory provisions were interpreted; the Court applied principles of common law torts regarding strict liability in hazardous activities.
- The judgment reviewed the doctrine of strict liability from Rylands v. Fletcher as adopted and expanded by the Supreme Court in major precedents.
- Emphasized that public utilities performing hazardous activities must bear strict liability, and the doctrine is applicable irrespective of statutory frameworks governing the utility.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are present in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines were issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The established principle of strict liability from Supreme Court and prior High Court decisions is reaffirmed and directly applied.