Holding

The Court held that a licensee engaged in the hazardous activity of supplying electricity is strictly liable for injuries caused, irrespective of any alleged negligence of the victim, and therefore dismissed the appeal challenging the compensation while partially allowing the appeal for enhancement.

Summary

The deceased, an apprentice of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd (PGVCL), died from electrocution while repairing an electric pole. The widow claimed Rs.10,00,000 compensation alleging absolute negligence by PGVCL, while the company contended the death resulted from the deceased's own negligence. The trial court awarded Rs.3,87,885 with interest and later increased compensation to Rs.4,53,200, deducting Rs.1,18,215 under the Electricity Act. PGVCL appealed under CPC Section 96 (First Appeal No.9 of 2012) and the claimants appealed for enhancement (First Appeal No.174 of 2011). The High Court applied the doctrine of strict/absolute liability from M.C. Mehta and related precedents, holding that the electricity supplier is liable irrespective of the deceased's conduct, and dismissed the company’s appeal while partially allowing the claimants’ appeal, ordering an additional payment of Rs.1,18,215. The interest component remained unchanged.

Issues considered

Whether the electricity supply company is strictly/absolutely liable for death caused during its hazardous activity despite alleged negligence of the deceased.
Whether the trial court erred in attributing negligence to the deceased and reducing compensation.
Whether the deduction of compensation under the Electricity Act is permissible in a tort claim.
Whether the appeal under CPC Section 96 is maintainable.

Legislation cited

Subjects

strict liabilityabsolute liabilityelectricity supplycompensationcivil appealnegligenceCode of Civil ProcedureElectricity Act

Judgment

C/FA/9/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 174 of 2011
==========================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH
Versus
PARVATIBEN ARJUNBHAI NEPALI WD/O ARJUNBHAI LAL BAHADUR
NEPAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HENIL M SHAH(10677) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 30/07/2026

JUDGMENT
Since the issue in both the First Appeals are one and the
same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

1. By way of filing present First Appeal No.9 of 2012 u/s 96
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”), the
appellant – Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd (in short “the
PGVCL”) challenges judgment and decree dated 4.10.2010
passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj,
whereby the learned trial Court has partly decreed Special
Civil Suit No.93 of 2005 and directed the PGVCL to pay
Rs.3,87,885/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
the date of filing of the suit till realization. Whereas, First
Appeal No.174 of 2011 is filed by the claimants for
enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are

Page 1 of 10
C/FA/9/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026

referred to as per their original status before the learned trial
Court.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the deceased
Arjunbhai Nepali was working as Apprentice with the
appellant. On 1.4.2004, the deceased and one line-man
Muljibhai Devjibhai Soni were instructed to visit the electric
pole for repairing at Vijaybhai Chavda's house. Both the
employees went to the site along with driver Mahendrasinh
for repairing of the fault. Deceased climbed up on the electric
pole for checking of electric line; at that time, due to
electrocution, the deceased received serious injuries and
passed away.

3.1 Claiming the aforesaid incident as absolute negligency
on the part of the PGVCL, the claimants have prayed for
compensation for her husband to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-
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 partly decreed the suit to the
aforesaid extent.

3.4 Being aggrieved, the PGVCL has preferred present First

Page 2 of 10
C/FA/9/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026

Appeal No.9 of 2012. Whereas, for enhancement of
compensation, the original claimants have preferred First
Appeal No.174 of 2011.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

5. Learned advocate for the 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, he would submit that
the learned trial Court has committed serious error in
deciding the issue of negligence against the PGVCL. He would
further submit that the learned trial Court made improper
calculation in grating compensation and even the income of
the deceased assessed by the learned trial Court is on the
higher side so also 12% interested granted by the learned
trial Court is on higher side. Upon above submissions, he
prays to allow First Appeal No.9 of 2012 and to dismiss First
Appeal No.174 of 2011.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents
- plaintiffs would submit that the wires and the running of
electric energy in the wires was exclusively under the control
and management of employees of the defendant, and it was
the duty of the defendant to follow proper procedure to pass
electric current in the electric lines. He would further submit
that it is obligatory on the part of the PGVCL to take great
care and caution in laying, installing and maintaining
overhead wires and to provide safety measures. He would
further submit that the death of the deceased occurred on

Page 3 of 10
C/FA/9/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026

account of negligence and willful default on the part of the
employee of the electricity company and therefore, the
learned trial Court has given just and fair compensation and
hence, no interference is called for. Upon above submission,
learned advocate for the respondents – plaintiffs prays to
dismiss First Appeal No.9 of 2012 and to allow First Appeal
No.174 of 2011.

7. 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?

8. 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 suffered 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
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

Page 4 of 10
C/FA/9/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026

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 affected 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."

9. 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 find 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 find any disputed question of
fact."

10. Recently, this Court in case of P.G.V.C.L. v/s. Heirs of
Chandrikaben Harpalsinh [AIR 2017 Gujarat 177],

Page 5 of 10
C/FA/9/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026

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 fitted with the angle. Therefore the wire for
spreading the clothes could not have been fitted 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 fitted 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
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

Page 6 of 10
C/FA/9/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026

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
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. It is in these circumstances, the concurrent
findings 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
first question refers to the statutory provision in
regard to liability of accident which again is vague as
there are specific 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.”

11. 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.

Page 7 of 10
C/FA/9/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026

12. There is no cavil that the appellant is engaged in the
business of selling hazardous product viz. Electricity. It is the
liability of the appellant – PGVCL to maintain all the wires to
have insulated them to prevent the incident. If any incident
occurs, the principle of absolute liability shall be attracted.
Thus, without touching the merits of the case considering the
fact that the PGVCL is engaged in selling the hazardous
substance, is required to pay compensation for death of the
deceased applying the principles of strict and absolute liability.

13. Apt to note that if energy so transmitted through electricity
line causes injury or death of a human being, who unknowingly
come in contact with it, then it is primary liability of the
Electricity Company to compensate the sufferer in view of
principle of absolute liability. Electricity transmitted through the
wires has potentiality of dangerous dimension. To add, it is the
duty upon the Electricity Company to take all safety measures to
prevent escape of such electricity or to see that such wire does
not expose risk to human being. If undertaking like present
appellant - PGVCL involved in the activity of supplying of
electricity is undoubtedly involving in hazardous or risky
exposure to human life, Law of torts, therefore, recognizes them
to be liable for injury suffered by any other person, irrespective
of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the Electricity
Company. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk
inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on
such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". Concept of
strict liability or absolute liability differs from concept of fault
liability which arises on account of negligence or fault in this

Page 8 of 10
C/FA/9/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026

way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the
foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable
precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for
avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is
based on fault liability. However, such is not consideration or
relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held
liable regardless of whether he could have avoided the particular
harm by taking precautions.

14. In view of above and in extenso of principles of strict
liability or absolute liability, the PGVCL would not be at
privilege to claim negligence of the deceased Thus, the
present First Appeal requires fate of only dismissal.

15. So far as First Appeal No.174 of 2011 is concerned,
having heard learned advocates for both the sides, it appears
that the learned trial Court after calculating the compensation
to Rs.4,53,200/-, was pleased to deduct Rs.1,18,215/- being
liability under the EC Act. The finding of the learned trial
Court to that extent, according to this Court, is required to be
modified, as liability arise under the low of tort and liability
arise under the EC Act is different and distinct. The learned
trial Court while deciding the liability under the law of tort,
cannot deduct liability arise under the EC Act and granted the
compensation. Therefore, the approach of the learned trial
Court to that extent is erroneous and against the settled
principles of law and thus, to that extent, the order is required
to be set aside.

16. For the foregoing reasons, I pass following order:-

Page 9 of 10
C/FA/9/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026

16.1 First Appeal No.9 of 2012 fails and stands dismissed.

16.2 First Appeal No.174 of 2011 is partly allowed and the
impugned judgment and decree is modified to the extent that
the PGVCL shall pay additional amount of Rs.1,18,215/- to the
claimants over and above the compensation already granted
to the claimants by the learned trial Court. So, in all the
PGVCL shall pay total compensation of Rs.5,06,100/- to the
claimants. The order of interest shall remain untouched.
Decree be drawn accordingly.

16.3 Request of learned advocate Mr. Hasurkar appearing for
the PGVCL to grant time of 12 weeks to deposit enhanced
amount of compensation along with interest, is accepted.

16.4 Consequently, CA, if any, does not survive and stands
disposed of accordingly.

16.5 Upon deposit of the enhanced amount, the same shall be
disbursed to the plaintiffs – claimants 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 30/07/2026 15:58:04

Page 10 of 10