Holding

Both Gujarat Electricity Board and Torrent Electricity Power Limited are jointly and severally liable for the compensation, and the mother’s legal heirs are entitled to claim the award under the Fatal Accidents Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.

Summary

The mother and brother of Shayan filed a suit against Ahmedabad Electricity Company (now Torrent) and Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) for compensation after Shayan died from electrocution caused by a short circuit in a 132 kV line. The trial court awarded Rs 1,90,000 with interest, holding both electricity companies jointly and severally liable, and allowed the mother’s legal heirs to claim the award after her death. Both defendants appealed, arguing that the inter‑company agreement on line maintenance absolved them of liability and that the siblings of the deceased could not claim under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The High Court examined the absence of the maintenance agreement, affirmed that both owners and users of the line are strictly liable for negligence, and rejected the contention that the heirs’ right to sue was extinguished. It also held that the mother’s legal representatives, though siblings of the deceased, were entitled to the compensation as part of her estate under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the Court dismissed both appeals and ordered the decree to be executed in favour of the heirs.

Issues considered

Whether the owner (GEB) or the user (Torrent) of the 132 kV line is solely liable for compensation arising from electrocution.
Whether the absence of a maintenance agreement makes both electricity companies jointly and severally liable.
Whether siblings of the deceased, acting as legal representatives of the deceased mother, can claim compensation under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
Whether the right to sue of the deceased mother survives her death and can be exercised by her heirs.

Legislation cited

Subjects

strict liabilityabsolute liabilityelectricity supplyFatal Accidents Actsuccessioncompensationjoint and several liabilitycivil appealtortelectrocution

Judgment

C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

Reserved On : 09/03/2026
Pronounced On : 02/04/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 844 of 2005

With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2005
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 844 of 2005
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2440 of 2004
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2005
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2440 of 2004
==========================================================
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD
Versus
RAMABEN BALKRISHNA PUROHIT (DEC. THRO LEGAL HEIRS) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Defendant(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,2
MR SALIL M THAKORE(5821) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

CAV JUDGMENT

1. The captioned First Appeals arise out of the
judgment and decree dated 30.04.20004 passed by the
learned City & Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No.2764
of 1992, whereby the plaintiffs’ suit was partly decreed and it
was held that the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.1,90,000/- with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till
actual realization, along with proportionate cost, jointly and
severally, from the defendants.

2. The First Appeal No.844 of 2005 has been filed by
Gujarat Electricity Board – original defendant No.2. First
Appeal No.2440 of 2004 is filed by Torrent Electricity Power

Page 1 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

Limited (formerly Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited)
( for short ‘TPL’), who was the original defendant No.1 in the
suit.

3. Since both appeals are arising out of same accident
and from common judgment and award, both appeals are
decided by this common judgment.

4. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the
parties are referred to their original status.

5 The brief facts borne out from the record are that
the mother and brother of the deceased – Shayan being
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, filed a suit against Ahmedabad
Electricity Company (for short ‘AEC’) and Gujarat Electricity
Board (for short ‘GEB’) for recovery of compensation to the
tune of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum and
cost, jointly and severally from the defendant of the suit. The
case of the plaintiffs was that, on 21.01.1991, at about 15 to
15.30 hours, the deceased Shayan and his friend Pershottam
Mistry, were on terrace of Bhadreshwar Flat, Block No.B,
Naranpura, Ahmedabad, for the purpose of laying cable wires
for a T.V. connection. While they were carrying out the work,
a sudden short circuit took place in a 132 KV line passing
adjacent to Bhadreshwar Flat. As a result, the deceased and
his friend, sustained burn injuries. They both were initially
taken to V.S.Hospital for treatment and thereafter, the
deceased Shayan was shifted to private hospital for further
treatment. However, he succumbed to his injuries on
04.02.1991 during the course of treatment. The Executive

Page 2 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

Magistrate recorded dying declaration of the deceased
Shayan.

5.1 The Plaintiffs asserted that the defendants failed to
take precaution as required under Rules 74 to 80 and 82 of
the Electric Supply Rules, 1956. It was further pleaded that
the occupier and owner of the flat had put up illegal
construction on existing buildings, thereby reducing the
clearance of the overhead lines, which was one of the reasons
for the mishap. The plaintiffs pleaded absolute liability on the
part of defendants and asserted that the deceased died due to
electrocution caused by their negligence. It was further
pleaded that the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of
the accident and was unmarried. He was earning
approximately Rs.40,000/- to 50,000/- per annum by carrying
on business in the name and style of Parimal Builders & Shilp
Associates. On the basis of these pleadings, the plaintiffs
estimated damages of Rs.7,00,000/- towards loss of estate,
medical expenses and other heads. AEC filed its written
statement at Exh.32 and resisted the suit by denying
negligence. It was contended that the 132 KV line belonged to
GEB and that AEC was merely using the electricity passing
through the said line under an agreement. Therefore, AEC
(now Torrent) was not liable to pay compensation.

5.2 It was further contended that statutorily as well as
contractually, it was the duty of GEB to maintain and protect
the electricity lines owned by it. A plea of contributory
negligence was also raised, contending that the deceased was
laying a TV cable and had thrown a co-axial wire from the

Page 3 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

terrace of Bhadreshwar Flat to the adjoining Mahagujarat
Society, and the co-axial wire came into contact with the 132
KV overhead conductor, resulting in electric shock. GEB also
filed its written statement at Exh. 24 and raised a defence
similar to that of AEC (now Torrent), with an additional
contention that the 132 KV line had been given to AEC under
an agreement, and as per the said agreement, AEC was
responsible for maintaining the line. Therefore, if any tortious
liability arose, AEC would be liable to pay compensation.

5.3 The learned Trial Court permitted both the parties
to lead evidence. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff
No.1-mother of the deceased, died and therefore, an
application at Ex.99, was filed to bring on record the legal
heirs/representatives of the deceased before the learned Trial
Court. The said application was allowed and the legal
heirs/representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs.
The order passed below Ex.99 was not challenged by any of
the defendants.

5.4 Upon appreciation of the evidence, the suit of
plaintiff No.1 was partly decreed. Plaintiff No.2 was not
considered a dependent of the deceased under Section 1A of
the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, and his claim was dismissed.
The said dismissal was accepted by plaintiff No.2, and has not
challenged the decision by way of appeal. The learned Trial
Court awarded compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at
9% per annum, holding the defendants jointly and severally
liable. Being aggrieved, both defendants preferred the present
First Appeals.

Page 4 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

6. I have heard learned advocate Ms.R.V.Acharya for
the Gujarat Electricity Board in First Appeal No. 844 of 2005,
learned advocate Mr.Salil Thakore for “Torrent” in both
appeals, learned advocate Mr.Sachin Vasavda for the original
plaintiffs in both appeals, and learned advocate Ms.Maya
Desai for GEB or its successor in First Appeal No.2440 of
2004. In First Appeal No.844 of 2004, Mr.Salil Thakore
appears as an advocate for defendant No.3, and in First
Appeal No.2440 of 2004, he appears as an advocate for the
appellant.

7. Learned advocate Ms.Acharya referred to the
deposition of the witness and para 6 of the written statement
of GEB and submitted that although the electricity line, being
a 132 KV line, was owned by GEB, it had been leased to AEC
by executing an agreement. As per the agreement, AEC was
required to maintain, preserve and repair the 132 KV line. In
view of this, she submit that the GEB is not a necessary party
to the suit and, consequently, cannot be held liable for
compensation arising from the electrocution incident that
occurred on the said 132 KV line under the use of
AEC/Torrent. She further referred to the deposition of the
officer of defendant No.1 at Ex.96, namely Hasmukhbhai
Maganbhai Patel, and submitted that the execution of the
agreement has been admitted by the witness. According to
her, this oral evidence clearly stipulates that AEC/Torrent was
responsible for payment of compensation. On these grounds,
learned advocate Ms. Acharya urged that the appeal filed by
GEB be allowed and GEB be exonerated from liability to pay

Page 5 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

compensation.

8. Learned advocate Mr.Salil Thakore, appearing for
AEC/Torrent, on the other hand, sought to fasten liability upon
the GEB to pay compensation, if any, on the ground that GEB
is the owner and occupier of the 132 KV line. He further
submitted that, as per common law principles, it is the owner,
who is liable to pay compensation and not the user. In these
circumstances, he contended that the learned Trial Court
committed a serious and manifest error in fastening liability
upon AEC/Torrent to pay compensation jointly and severally.
Another contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Thakore is
that, upon the death of Ramaben Balkrishan Purohit, the
mother of the deceased Shayan, her heirs/legal
representatives, namely Mr. Kishore Balkrishna Purohit, Mr.
Anant Balkrishna Purohit, Kokilaben Atulbhai Buch (married
sister of the deceased), Dr.Ushaben Sharadbhai Dave (another
married sister) and Naliniben Dilipbhai Mehta, were joined as
plaintiffs. He submitted that, in view of Section 1A of the Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855, siblings are not entitled to claim
compensation for the death of brother. He further submitted
that, although the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, are
archaic, they continue to govern claims under act of tortious
liability, except in cases arising under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Therefore, he argued that upon the death of plaintiff No.1-
Ramaben (mother of the deceased), the right to sue did not
survive, and the siblings, who were joined as heirs and legal
representatives, are not entitled to receive any compensation.
He submitted that therefore the learned City Civil Court

Page 6 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

committed a serious error in awarding compensation to the
siblings of the deceased -Shayan.

8.1 Mr.Thakor, learned advocate further submitted
that, in view of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, the
right to sue, being a personal cause of action of Ramaben,
extinguished upon her death and did not survive in favour of
her heirs and legal representatives. In these circumstances,
he submitted that the appeal filed by AEC/Torrent deserves
consideration. To fortify his submissions, learned advocate
Mr. Thakore referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of
the Kerala High Court in the case of P.B.Kader & Ors.
Vs.Thatchamma & Ors. reported in AIR 1970 Kerala 241.

8.2 In light of the aforesaid submissions, learned
advocate Mr. Thakore prayed that First Appeal No. 2440 of
2004 be allowed and the impugned decree against
AEC/Torrent be quashed and set aside.

9. Learned advocate Ms.Maya Desai, appearing for
the respondent in First Appeal No.2440 of 2005, adopted the
submissions made by learned advocate Ms. Acharya and also
placed handwritten notes on record.

10. Learned advocate Mr.Schin D Vasavda appearing
for the original plaintiffs, mainly referred to the judgment of
this Court in the case of Gujarat Vidyut Board Vs. Chintan
Tulsibhai Patel Minor through Tulsibhai Khodabhai reported

Page 7 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

in (2023)4 GLH 408 and submitted that the principle of strict
liability operates against the Company since it is engaged in
the activity of supplying and selling electricity. He would
further submit that, undoubtedly, the Company is involved in
dealing with a hazardous commodity, thereby exposing human
life to risk. The law of torts, as aforesaid, recognizes liability
for injuries suffered by any person irrespective of negligence
or carelessness on the part of the electricity company. He
further submitted that, in the present case, the learned City
Civil Court has awarded a meager amount of Rs.1,90,000/-
towards the loss of human life. Therefore, the said meager
award, as decreed, should not be disturbed in the First
Appeals.

10.1 Upon the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate
Mr.Sachin Vasavda prayed to dismiss both the appeal.

11. Regard being had to the rival submissions of
learned advocates for the respective parties and perusal of
the impugned judgment and decree as well as record and
proceedings, at the outset, two questions arise for
consideration. Firstly, whether AEC (now Torrent) or GEB can
be absolved of their liability from paying compensation?
Secondly, whether plaintiff Nos.1/1 to 1/5 joined as legal
heirs/representatives of Ramaben, vide order below Ex.99,
would not be entitled to compensation for the death of the
deceased Shayan on the ground that they are siblings?

Page 8 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

The incident in which the deceased Shayan lost his life is
not in dispute. Though the learned advocate appearing for the
electricity Company raised questions on the issue of
negligence, considering the meager amount of Rs.1,90,000/-
awarded for loss of life, the arguments on the issue of
negligence appear to have been found perfunctorily. Even
otherwise, upon perusal of the impugned judgment, more
particularly, the reports at Exs.112 & 113, their comparison,
the dying declaration of the deceased at Ex.81, and the oral
deposition of the witness of defendant, it is sufficiently proved
that a spark from 132KV line flashed at the relevant time,
causing fire to the deceased and his friend, resulting in burn
injuries which ultimately proved fatal to the deceased Shayan.
Apt to note that the Electricity Company seeks exemption
from liability by relying upon inter se agreements, contending
that 132KV line, being the sole cause of electrocution, is
owned by GEB, and therefore GEB is solely liable to pay
compensation. As against this contention, GEB contended that
AMC/Torrent, which is using the line under an executed
agreement, is solely responsible for maintaining the electricity
line and is therefore liable to pay compensation. Though both
electricity companies have vehemently contested the issue
inter se, neither of them have produced the agreement
during the trial, despite it being a vital document for
determining their respective liabilities. The learned Trial
Court has elaborately dealt with this issue in paragraph 24 of
the judgment and has rightly held that, in the absence of such
an agreement, both company are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation, as one owns the 132 KV line and the other

Page 9 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

uses it, and both are responsible for its maintenance. The
negligence in maintenance has thus been duly established.
The learned advocate for the electricity company could not
point out any material overlooked by the learned City Civil
Court while arriving at the conclusion to fasten joint and
several liability upon both company.

12. Now, the core question to be decided by this Court,
as argued by learned advocate Mr. Salil Thakore, is whether
the siblings of the deceased Shayan, who have been joined as
party plaintiffs as heirs/legal representatives of the original
plaintiff No.1 (mother of the deceased), are entitled to claim
compensation, in view of Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents
Act, 1855? It is contended that siblings are not entitled to
claim compensation under the said provision. It is further
submitted that although the original plaintiff Ramaben, being
the mother of deceased, was entitled to claim compensation,
her right to sue, being personal in nature, does not survive
upon her death so as to be inherited by her heirs and legal
representatives.

13. I am not impressed by this submission. The learned
Trial Court framed Issue No.3, whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum? If yes, what amount and from whom?
What order and decree? The reasons for partly allowing Issue
No.3 is recorded in paragraph 22 of the judgment as under:

Page 10 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

“Now this takes me to decide as to what amount of
compensation should be awarded to the plaintiff no.1 namely
mother of the deceased. It needs to be noted here that the
present suit is preferred by the mother and brother of
deceased Shayan. But since the Fatal Accident Act permits
the action to be brought for benefit of wife, husband, parent
and child, the action initiated for and on behalf of plaintiff
no.2 is not at all maintainable at law. Suffice to refer the
principle laid down in the case between Smt.N.V.
Santkumari & Others Vs. Dharuji Chogaji & Others
reported in XXII G.L.R., P.650.”

14. Thus, it is noticeable that the learned City Civil
Court was conscious of the provisions of the Fatal Accidents
Act, particularly Section 1A, and also referred to the judgment
of the Co-ordinate Bench, extracting para 14 thereof, to hold
that plaintiff No.2, who is the real brother of the deceased
Shayan, is not entitled to compensation.

15. In the aforesaid background, the question that
arises for consideration is whether the siblings, who are
joined as heirs/legal representatives of plaintiff No.1 being a
mother of the deceased Shayan, are entitled to claim
compensation. The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, was brought on
the statute book w.e.f. 27.03.1855 and has since remained
unchanged.

16. Having considered the aforesaid, archaic nature of
law, I now refer to the record and proceedings, which indicate
that, by the order below Ex.99, the proposed heirs of plaintiff
No.1, who had expired, were brought on record without any
objection from the Electricity Company. Learned advocate
Mr.Thakore, who vehemently argued that heirs/legal

Page 11 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

representatives of deceased-mother since are sibling of
deceased can not claim compensation, could not point out that
why electricity company did not raise issue at first instance
and allowed jointly of them. Be that as it may, appellant
Nos.1/1 to 1/5 were joined as plaintiffs as they were
representing the plaintiffs. However, they may be sibling of
deceased but equally they were legal representatives of
deceased plaintiff-mother and thus legally they are entitled to
claim compensation, which was received to deceased plaintiff-
mother.

17. Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
defines the term ‘legal representative’ as under:-

“2(11) legal representative" means a person who in law
represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any
person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased
and where a party sues or is sued in a representative
character the person on whom the estate devolves on the
death of the party so suing or sued.”

If a person represents the estate of a deceased
person, he is deemed to be a legal representative, and the
term also includes any person who intermeddles with the
estate of the deceased.

18. Apposite to fact that learned advocate argued that
the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.1, being
siblings, are not entitled to claim compensation under Section
1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. However, he could not
dispute that plaintiff No.1 being the mother of the deceased,

Page 12 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

was entitled to sue for compensation for the death of her son
resulting from electrocution. Plaintiff No.1 expired during the
pendency of the trial. Under the Indian Succession Act, any
compensation that would have been awarded to Plaintiff No.1
becomes part of her estate. Consequently, her Class-I heirs, in
their capacity as legal representatives, are entitled to claim
such estate by stepping into the shoes of Plaintiff No.1. Thus,
merely because Plaintiff Nos. 1/1 to 1/5 are siblings of the
deceased does not disentitle them from claiming the
compensation, which is part of the estate of Plaintiff No.1-
mother of the deceased. The contention based on Section 306
of the Indian Succession Act, is misplaced, as the present case
does not involve a purely personal right of Plaintiff No.1 that
would extinguish upon her death. Rather, it is a case where
she had a subsisting right to claim compensation for the death
of her son due to electrocution, and such right, upon
crystallization, forms part of her estate. The said estate can,
therefore, be claimed by her legal representatives in view of
Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There is
no gainsaying that the argument that Section 306 of the
Indian Succession Act bars Plaintiff Nos.1/1 to 1/5 from
claiming compensation, on the ground that the right to sue of
Plaintiff No.1 stood extinguished upon her death, is
unacceptable rather, totally baseless and meritless.

19. In view of the above, the contentions raised by the
learned advocate appearing for the electricity company fail to
apprise this Court. In the case of Gujarat Vidyut Board
(supra), the issue of strict liability and its extension to

Page 13 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

absolute liability has been thoroughly discussed. The
provisions of Electricity Act cast upon the electricity company
to maintain the service lines overhead lines, and in the event
of any default, the Company is liable to pay compensation in
case of mishap. Since the electricity Company is engaged in
an inherently dangerous activity, explaining the risk to human
life, the principle of absolute liability means strict liability
without defence as applied and thereby electricity company is
liable to compensate for the loss of human life caused due to
electrocution. As regards the compensation determined by the
learned City Civil Court, the Electricity Company has not
disputed the same. In any case, the compensation of
Rs.1,90,000/- valued for the loss of human life, does not
require to be disturbed in the First Appeals.

20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that learned City Civil Court has not
committed any error either in appreciation of the facts or
evaluation of evidence as well as understanding the provisions
of law.

21. Resultantly, both the First Appeals stand
dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. R&P, if any,
be sent back to the concerned Court. Consequently, Civil
Application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of
accordingly. Decree be drawn.

22. If any amount lying and deposited before this

Page 14 of 15
C/FA/844/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026

Court, it shall be transferred to the learned City Civil Court
with accrued interest. Consequently, the same shall be paid
to original plaintiff Nos.1/1 to 1/5 with accrued interest
thereon.

23. Registry is directed to keep a copy of the judgment
in each of the appeal.

(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANOJ

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MANOJKUMAR(HC01092), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 02/04/2026 16:50:27

Page 15 of 15