PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ.CO.LTDversusHASAM MAMAD SAMA

     C/FA/3505/2007                              JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3505 of 2007
                                    With
                CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2007
                     In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3505 of 2007
==========================================================
                      PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ.CO.LTD
                                Versus
                       HASAM MAMAD SAMA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR EE SAIYED(725) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR NASIR SAIYED(6145) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                             Date : 10/03/2026

                               JUDGMENT
1.     By way of      ling present First Appeal u/s 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”), the appellant –
PGVCL challenges judgment and decree dated 13.11.2006
passed by the learned 4th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj,
whereby the learned trial Court has decreed Special Civil Suit
NO.64 of 2003 and directed the PGVCL to pay Rs.3,38,000/-
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
 ling of the suit till realization for the death of Abdul Hasam.


2.     For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are
referred to as per their original status before the learned trial
Court.


3.     Brie;y states facts of the case are that plainti<s are
parents of deceased Abdul Hasam.                  The deceased was
working as plumber at the daily wages of Rs.150/- and was the


                                 Page 1 of 8
      C/FA/3505/2007                        JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




only bread-earner of the family. That on an unfortunate day of
6.12.2001, when the deceased was passing through the ages
of lake situated at village Bharasar, he came in contact with
the live wire of the PGVCL and died on the spot.


3.1     Claiming the aforesaid incident as absolute negligency
on the part of the PGVCL, the plainti<s have prayed for
compensation for his son to the tune of Rs.5,62,000/- with
interest.


3.2     The defendant PGVCL having been served, appeared
through learned advocate and mainly submitted that the
incident took place due to sole negligency of the deceased. It
is the deceased who is required to take necessary care to
avoid the mishap. Rest of the pleadings are also denied by the
PGVCL.


3.3     The learned trial Court decreed the suit to the aforesaid
extent.


3.4     Being aggrieved, the PGVCL has preferred present First
Appeal.


4.      Heard learned advocate Ms. RV Acharya for the PGVCL.
None remained present for the plainti<s.


5.      Learned advocate Ms. Acharya having referred to the
contention raised in the written statement, copy of the
panchnama of the spot at Exh.23, inquest panchnama at
Exh.22 so also oral evidence of Ashok Premjibhai at Exh.42

                              Page 2 of 8
     C/FA/3505/2007                          JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




and Babubhai Damor at Exh.44, would submit that it is a clear
case where deceased was negligent and had he taken proper
care, the mishap would have been avoided and therefore, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, she would submit
that the learned trial Court has committed serious error in
deciding the issue of negligence against the PGVCL.                  Upon
above submissions, she prays to allow this First Appeal.


6.     Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court has
been called to decide as to whether the deceased was
negligent and due to his negligency, the incident occurred?


The learned trial Court framed following issues at Exh.13:-

            “1 Whether the statement prove that on 6-12-2001,
            Abdul Hasam Sama, son of the plainti s, died due to
            electric shock due to the breaking of the wire of the
            defendant's pillar while he was passing over the
            embankment of the Khaliya Lake in Bharasar village,
            Bhuj taluka?

            2). Whether the plainti s prove that the incident in
            dispute was caused by the defendant's negligence?

            3). Whether the plainti s prove that the plainti s are
            entitled to compensation for damages from the
            defendants as per the details of para-7 of the plaint?

            4). Whether the plainti s prove that the plainti s are
            entitled to interest on the amount due from the
            defendant until it is recovered? If yes, at what rate?

            5) Whether the claim barred by any legal provision?

            6). Whether    the   plainti s      entitled        to        the
            compensation sought?



                               Page 3 of 8
     C/FA/3505/2007                             JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




            7). What is the order and decree?


7.     The issue Nos.1,2 and 6 are answered in a<irmative,
issue no.3 in partly a<irmative, for issue No.4, it is answered
that the plainti<s are entitled for the interest at the rate of 9%
per annum on the decretal amount and lastly, vide answering
issue No.7, the suit was partly decreed. The other evidence
produced by the plainti<s are of no importance and therefore,
it does not require re-assessment of the First Appeal.


8.     It is the case where the deceased while walking and
passing on the age of pond situated at village Bharasar, he
came in contact with the hanging live electric wire and died
due to electrocution.


9.     In this factual background, if we refer the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M.C. Mehta v/s. Union of
India [AIR 1987 SC 1086 ], whereby the Hon’ble Apex
Court extended principles of strict liability involved in case of
Rylands v. Fletcher, 1868 3 HL 330 and held it to be absolute
liability. In that case, claim for compensation was sought on
behalf of persons who had su<ered consequent to escape of
oleum gas from the units of Sriram Foods & Fertilizers
Industries. The Honble Apex Court has laid down the law as
regards        consequences   of    accidents      where        inherently
dangerous activities are carried on, which reads as under:-

            “The principle of absolute liability was laid down
            whereby liability was made absolute i.e., strict
            liability sans defences. The observations of the Apex
            Court at Para 31 is self-explanatory and reads as


                               Page 4 of 8
      C/FA/3505/2007                           JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




             follows: "....We would therefore hold that where an
             enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently
             dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on
             account of an accident in the operation of such
             hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting,
             for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is
             strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those
             who are a ected by the accident and such liability is
             not subject to any of the exceptions which operate
             vis-avis the tortious principle of strict liability under
             the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher."


10.     In H.S.E.B. v/s. Ram Nath [2004 (5) SCC 793], the
Honble Apex Court again reiterated extension of principle of
absolute liability in case where liability was sought to be
disowned by the Power Supply Company by contending that
the unauthorized structure near the electric line hand
contributed to the accident. In para 6, the Honble Apex Court
held as under:-

             "6. The appellants are carrying on a business which is
             inherently dangerous. If a person were to come into
             contact with a high-tension wire, he is bound to
             receive serious injury and/or die. As they are carrying
             on a business which is inherently dangerous, the
             appellants would have to ensure that no injury results
             from their activities. If they ;nd that unauthorised
             constructions have been put up close to their wires it
             is their duty to ensure that that (2004) 5 SCC 793
             construction is got demolished by moving the
             appropriate authorities and if necessary, by moving a
             court of law. Otherwise, they would take the
             consequences of their inaction. If there are
             complaints that these wires are drooping and almost
             touching houses, they have to ensure that the
             required distance is kept between the houses and the
             wires, even though the houses be unauthorised. In
             this case we do not ;nd any disputed question of
             fact."


                                 Page 5 of 8
      C/FA/3505/2007                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




11.     Recently, this Court in case of PGVCL v/s. Heirs of
Chandrikaben           Harpalsinh      [AIR    2017    Gujarat        177],
discussed the issue relying upon the judgment in case of M.P.
Electricity Board v. Shailkumar and Ors., reported in
(2002) 2 SCC 162 in para 6, observed thus:-

             “6. The submissions have been made by learned
             Advocate Shri S.P. Hasurkar referring to the
             judgment of both the courts below and also the
             material and evidence particularly Exh.35 to support
             his contention about the negligence.

             Therefore, the moot question is whether any
             negligence could be attributed to the deceased and
             whether any such contentions could be entertained to
             avoid the liability for the incident and the
             compensation as a result thereof. The aspect of
             negligence has been considered by both the courts
             below. Though the submissions have been made by
             learned Advocate Shri S.P.Hasurkar that from the
             pole the wire was brought to the premises which was
             passing from a pipe to the meter and that the pipe
             was ;tted with the angle. Therefore the wire for
             spreading the clothes could not have been ;tted with
             the angle and therefore it is the negligence of the
             consumer, is throughly misconceived. The installation
             and maintenance is the responsibility and obligation
             of the licensee like the Appellants herein. When the
             line is taken from the pole right up to the premises, it
             is their obligation to see that it is in such a manner
             covered and the wire is ;tted with the pipe that it
             does not result in any accident and it is safe. These
             precautions are required to be taken by the supplier
             as they have installed the line and they have to
             maintain the line. There is a periodical supervision
             and when there is a checking for Regular Civil Appeal
             No. 15/2017 Page 19 the meter, the representative
             would also visit the premises. Therefore the
             submission that because the wire for spreading the


                                 Page 6 of 8
C/FA/3505/2007                           JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




       clothes was attached to the angle, it was the main
       cause for the accident and attributed the negligence
       to the consumer, is misconceived. The trial court has
       referred to and relied upon the judgment of the
       Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M.P. Electricity
       Board v. Shailkumar and Ors., reported in (2002)
       2 SCC 162 and made the observations which has
       been quoted referring to the "principal of strict
       liability". The concept of strict liability assumes its
       di erent 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. It is in these circumstances, the concurrent
       ;ndings of facts arrived at by both the courts below
       cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. The
       substantial questions of law posed as stated above are
       only referring to the aspect of Regular Civil Appeal
       No. 15/2017 Page 20 appreciation of evidence. The
       ;rst question refers to the statutory provision in
       regard to liability of accident which again is vague as
       there are speci;c rules qua the Electricity Supply
       Rules and the Electricity Supply Code, which again
       referred to the statutory provisions and the obligation
       of the licensee to take precaution for installation and
       maintenance of such line. The reference and reliance
       on Exh. 35 would not justify any such submission
       which are sought to be made by learned Advocate
       Shri S.P. Hasurkar for the Appellants. Therefore it can
       hardly be said that there is any substantial question of
       law is involved.”




                           Page 7 of 8
            C/FA/3505/2007                                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




     12.        One more judgment which was pressed into service is in
     case of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited Thru
     Deputy              Engineer               Versus             L/h         Of       Deceaed               Jignesh
     Jamanbhai Gohil, 2024 (0) JX(Guj) 898.


     13.        In view of above and in extension of principles of strict
     liability or absolute liability, the PGVCL would not be at
     privilege            to       claim         negligence               of      the        deceased,              more
     particularly, when the fact suggests that live wire is hanging
     loose enough and was on lower height to come in contact with
     the person passing through the age of the lake of village
     Bharasar. Thus, the present First Appeal requires fate of only
     dismissal.


     14.        Resultantly,              present            First        Appeal           fails       and       stands
     dismissed.


     15.        Consequently, CA does not survive and stands disposed
     of accordingly.


     16.        If any amount is deposited with the learned trial Court,
     the same shall be disbursed to the plainti<s along with
     interest accrued thereon.


     17.        Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
     the concerned Court forthwith.

                                                                                                     (J. C. DOSHI,J)
     SHEKHAR P. BARVE


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/03/2026 17:14:49




                                                           Page 8 of 8