The Gujarat High Court (Ahmedabad Bench) has asserted that an electricity distribution company engaged in the supply of electricity carries on an inherently hazardous activity, and therefore liability for death or injury caused by contact with live electric current is governed by the principles of strict liability and absolute liability. In such cases, the electricity company cannot avoid liability by pleading negligence on the part of the deceased once the accident is shown to have arisen from the dangerous activity of electricity transmission.
The Court held that because PGVCL was engaged in a hazardous activity and had the obligation to maintain the electric lines safely, it was liable to compensate the deceased’s heirs. The defence that the deceased himself was negligent was held to be unavailable in light of the principles of strict and absolute liability.
Also Read Telangana High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in ₹94.96 Crore Fake ITC Case
A Single Judge Bench of Justice J. C. Doshi identified the core issue as whether the deceased himself was negligent and whether the accident had occurred because of his negligence. It also noted the issues framed by the trial court, including entitlement to compensation, negligence of the defendant, and entitlement to interest. Referring to M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [[AIR 1987 SC 1086], the Court reiterated that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results from an accident in that activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate affected persons, and such liability is not subject to the traditional exceptions to strict liability.
The Court also referred to H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath [2004 (5) SCC 793], where the Supreme Court held that a power supply company carries on an inherently dangerous business and must ensure that no injury results from its activities. Even if there are unauthorized constructions near electric wires, the electricity authority must take steps to remove the danger; otherwise, it must bear the consequences of its inaction.
Therefore, the Court reiterated that installation and maintenance of electric lines is the responsibility of the licensee, and once the principle of strict liability is attracted, the licensee incurs liability irrespective of whether precautions were taken. The Court noted that negligence arguments of the utility cannot dilute this position where the accident has already occurred in the course of such hazardous activity.
The High Court expressly observed that electricity is a hazardous product and that PGVCL, being in the business of supplying and selling electricity, had a duty to maintain and insulate its wires so as to prevent such incidents. If death or injury is caused when a person unknowingly comes into contact with electric current transmitted through such lines, the electricity company bears the primary liability to compensate the victim or the victim’s family.
Further, the Court clarified the distinction between fault liability and strict or absolute liability. In negligence-based cases, liability depends on whether foreseeable harm could have been avoided by taking reasonable precautions. But in strict liability cases, that inquiry becomes irrelevant, because the defendant is liable regardless of whether it could have avoided the harm through precautions.
Also Read Delhi High Court Issues Notice on Sharjeel Imam’s Bail Plea in Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case
Briefly, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (PGVCL) filed a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the trial court’s judgment dated Oct 11, 2012, whereby the trial court had partly decreed the suit and directed PGVCL to pay Rs. 4.37 lakhs with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
The case arose from an incident dated Aug 30, 2009, when the deceased, while passing near an electric pole, suddenly came into contact with electric current and died on the spot. The plaintiffs claimed that the death occurred due to absolute negligence on the part of PGVCL and sought compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs with interest. PGVCL contested the suit by arguing that the incident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased and that he ought to have taken necessary care to avoid the mishap. It also challenged the trial court’s findings on negligence, the calculation of compensation, the assessment of income, and the award of 7% interest.
The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the electric wires and transmission of electricity were exclusively under the control and management of PGVCL and its employees. They contended that it was PGVCL’s obligation to take great care in laying, installing, and maintaining overhead wires and providing safety measures, and that the death occurred because of negligence and wilful default on the part of the electricity company’s employees.
