Holding

The Gujarat Vidhyut Board, being engaged in the hazardous activity of supplying electricity, is strictly and absolutely liable for the death of the deceased, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The plaintiffs, the wife and minor children of the deceased, sued Gujarat Vidhyut Board (GVB) for compensation after the deceased was electrocuted when a live wire snapped on a terrace. The trial court partially decreed the suit, awarding Rs.4,85,000 with interest, which GVB appealed under Section 96 of the CPC. GVB argued the deceased’s own negligence caused the accident, while the plaintiffs contended that the electricity board, as a statutory body, owed a duty to maintain safe wires and is strictly liable for hazardous activities. The High Court examined the applicability of strict/absolute liability principles as laid down in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and related cases, rejecting the defence of the deceased’s negligence. It held that the board, engaged in the inherently dangerous activity of supplying electricity, is absolutely liable for the death, and dismissed the appeal. The decree of the trial court stands, and the awarded amount with interest is to be paid to the plaintiffs.

Issues considered

Whether the suit is within the limitation period
Whether the court has jurisdiction
Whether the suit fails on grounds of non‑joinder or mis‑joinder of parties
Whether the plaintiffs have proved the act of the defendants to be illegal
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the claimed compensation from the defendants
What order and decree should be made
Whether the doctrine of strict/absolute liability applies to the electricity board in this case
Whether the deceased’s alleged negligence can exempt the board from liability

Legislation cited

Subjects

strict liabilityabsolute liabilityelectricity supplynegligencecompensationcivil suithazardous activitytort lawCode of Civil ProcedureM.C. MehtaH.S.E.B.M.P. Electricity Board

Judgment

C/FA/1917/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1917 of 2008

==========================================================
GUJARAT VIDHYUT BOARD & ANR.
Versus
IILABEN BHARATBHAI JOSHI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Appellants
MR HEMANT S SHAH(756) for the Respondents
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 02/07/2026

ORDER

1. By way of filing present First Appeal u/s 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”), the appellant –
Gujarat Vidhyut Board (in short “the GVB”) challenges
judgment and decree dated 18.4.2017 passed by the learned
City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned trial Court
has partly decreed Civil Suit No.1410 of 2002 and directed
the GVB to pay Rs.4,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

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

3. Briefly states facts of the case are that the plaintiff No.1
is the wife of the deceased. The plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the
minor sons of the deceased and the plaintiff No.4 is the

Page 1 of 10
C/FA/1917/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026

mother of the deceased. The defendant is a statutory body
under the Electricity Act and works to supply the electricity
having head office in the city of Baroda. On 22-8-2001, the
deceased Bharatkumar along with his friend Ramyagna
Shatrudhansinh Chauhan went to the house of Chetanbhai
Motilal Tanna in order to ask about the health of Chetanbhai.
After taking breakfast, they also went for seeing the house of
Chetanbhai. That the house was situated ground floor and the
aforesaid three friends went on the first floor. As they were
passing through the bungalow of Chetanbhai, Chetanbhai was
going ahead and Ramyagnabhai and the deceased were in the
behind side. As they were passing on terrace, the electric live
wire was snapped from Chetanbhai's bungalow and the
deceased Bharatbhai got electrocuted, as a result he fell down
and sustained severe injuries. The deceased got unconscious
and his fingers of right hand were burnt on account of
electrocution. The deceased also sustained head injuries and
blood was oozing out. The deceased was immediately rushed
to the Panchsheel Hospital for treatment and it was advised
from the doctor of the Hospital to admit the deceased in the
Civil Hospital. Ultimately the deceased was admitted in Civil
Hospital in the emergency ward where the doctor declared
the deceased dead.

3.1 Claiming the aforesaid incident as absolute negligency
on the part of the GVB, the plaintiff No.1 have prayed for
compensation for her husband to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/-
with interest.

3.2 The defendant GVB having been served, appeared

Page 2 of 10
C/FA/1917/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026

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
GVB.

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

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

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

5. Learned advocate for the defendant 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
GVB. She would further submit that the learned trial Court
made proper calculation in grating compensation and even
the income of the deceased assessed by the learned trial Court
is on the higher side so also 9% interested granted by the
learned trial Court is on higher side. She would further submit
that the GVB cannot held liable when the centre cause of
electrocution is illegal construction carried out in the society.
Upon above submissions, he prays to allow this First Appeal.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents

Page 3 of 10
C/FA/1917/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026

- 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 GVB 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 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 the
First Appeal.

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?

7.1 The learned trial Court framed following issues at
Exh.20:-

“1. Whether the suit is within the time limit ?

2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction ?

3. Whether the suit fails on the ground of non joinder
and mis-joinder of the parties ?

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove prove that the act of
the defendants is illegal?

Page 4 of 10
C/FA/1917/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for such amount
from the defendants ?

6. What order and decree?”

8. Issue Nos.1,2,4 & 5 are answered in affirmative, issue
No.3 is negative and issue no.6 is answered as per final order.

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 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
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."

Page 5 of 10
C/FA/1917/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026

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 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."

11. Recently, this Court in case of P.G.V.C.L. 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

Page 6 of 10
C/FA/1917/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026

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
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

Page 7 of 10
C/FA/1917/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026

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.”

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. 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 – GVB 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,

Page 8 of 10
C/FA/1917/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026

without touching the merits of the case considering the fact that
the GVB 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.

14. 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 - GVB 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
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

Page 9 of 10
C/FA/1917/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026

liable regardless of whether he could have avoided the particular
harm by taking precautions.

15. In view of above and in extenso of principles of strict
liability or absolute liability, the GVB would not be at privilege
to claim negligence of the deceased. Even, there is no
evidence on record that the construction in question is illegal.
Thus, the present First Appeal requires fate of only dismissal.

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

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

18. If any amount is deposited with the learned trial Court,
the same shall be disbursed to the plaintiffs along with
interest accrued thereon strictly as per law.

19. 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 02/07/2026 14:56:33

Page 10 of 10