Electricity Companies Strictly Liable For Electrocution Caused By Exposed Wires: Gujarat HC

Electricity providers carry an absolute liability to prevent injury from hazardous installations, making them financially responsible for mishaps regardless of any alleged negligence by the victim. The Gujarat High Court reinforced this principle by dismissing an appeal from a state power utility, holding that the business of transmitting energy is inherently dangerous and demands full-proof safety measures.

In a verdict delivered by Justice J. C. Doshi, the court scrutinized a challenge by the power company against a trial court decree that awarded compensation to a farmer who suffered permanent disability due to an exposed earthing wire. The court had to determine if the doctrine of strict liability applied over the company’s defense of contributory negligence.

Application of Absolute Liability in Hazardous Activities

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The concept of strict liability assumes its different dimension that the liability is strict once the accident has occurred and in any case the onus is on the licensee who is obliged to take precaution at the time of installation and maintenance of line to see that no accident occurs or the chances are minimized. Therefore, the submissions which have been made referring to the aspect of negligence has a reference to the negligence in Law of Torts where a person could show that reasonable precautions were taken. However, once the "principal of strict liability" is attributed, the liability would be incurred irrespective of the fact that whether the precautions were taken or not."

Integrating the precedent set in M.C. Mehta v/s. Union of India ( "AIR 1987 SC 1086": 1987 CaseBase(SC) 158), the court emphasized that enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous activities are strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those affected by accidents resulting from such operations. This principle was further reinforced by H.S.E.B. v/s. Ram Nath, which established that power companies must ensure no injury results from their activities, even involving unauthorized constructions near lines.

Failure to Ensure Safety Protocols

Evidence revealed that the transformer earthing wire was lying on the ground, a direct violation of safety standards. The court noted that electricity transmitted through wires has "potentiality of dangerous dimension." Referring to PGVCL v/s. Heirs of Chandrikaben Harpalsinh and Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited Thru Deputy Engineer Versus L/h Of Deceased Jignesh Jamanbhai Gohil, the bench held that it is the primary liability of the electricity company to compensate sufferers because the risk is foreseeable and inherent in the nature of the activity.

The Court has following directions:

"Resultantly, present First Appeal fails and stands dismissed. CA, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. Decree to be drawn accordingly."

"If any amount is deposited with the learned trial Court, the same shall be disbursed to the plaintiff along with interest accrued thereon."

Background:

The dispute originated when a farmer in Mendarda was electrocuted after coming into contact with an earthing wire lying on the ground near a transformer on November 24, 1998. The victim suffered permanent total disability and filed a suit under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant company, constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, argued that the plaintiff was negligent and had failed to take care to avoid the mishap.

The trial court at Junagadh rejected the company's defense, awarding the plaintiff Rs. 6,10,000 with interest. On appeal, the High Court affirmed that because the company was selling a hazardous product, it was responsible for ensuring all wires were properly insulated and secured. The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed the immediate disbursement of deposited amounts to the plaintiff.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 85 of 2013
NeutralCitation: 2026:GUJHC:44137
Case Title: Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Anr. Versus Bhikhabhai Chaganbhai Bhakhar
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232)
For the Respondent(s): MR VIMAL PATEL for VMP LEGAL(7210)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 370