PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITEDversusHEIRS OF DECD. RAMBHAI RAMSHIBHAI LAKHATRANA

     C/FA/4022/2012                               JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4022 of 2012

==========================================================
          PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
                             Versus
     HEIRS OF DECD. RAMBHAI RAMSHIBHAI LAKHATRANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Appellants
MR KAUSHAL P MODI for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Respondents
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                              Date : 10/07/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1.     By way of filing present First Appeal 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 31.8.2012 passed by
the learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Veraval, whereby the
learned trial Court has partly decreed Special Civil Suit No.16
of 2004 and directed the PGVCL to pay Rs.3,41,400/- with
interest at the rate of 7% 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 stated facts of the case are that the deceased
Rambhai Ramsibhai had a boring machine and earned Rs.


                                  Page 1 of 11
      C/FA/4022/2012                                JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026




5000/-        per      month.   On      6/6/2001,   deceased          Rambhai
Ramsibhai's machine was running in the Umbri border of
Sutrapada taluka, and the deceased was walking there from
Sutrapada. It was raining lightly, on the border of Vaniyavav
village, near the land of Aher Hajabhai Veerabhai, while he
was moving forward on the road, due to some technical fault
in the GEB transformer near the road, deceased Rambhai
Ramsibhai got electrocuted. The deceased was brought to the
Primary Health Center, Sutrapada and was declared dead.


3.1     Claiming the aforesaid incident as absolute negligency
on the part of the PGVCL, the plaintiffs have prayed for
compensation for her husband to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-
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
Appeal.


4.      Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.



                                     Page 2 of 11
     C/FA/4022/2012                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026




5.     Learned advocate for the appellant / defendant would
submit that on the date of the incident, there was a drizzle
and in the meanwhile, the deceased went to join transformer
fuse illegally and received electrocution and died and
therefore, it is the case of self-negligency which resulted into
electrocution and thus, the PGVCL is not required to pay any
compensation. He would further submit that the learned trial
Court has erred in fastening the liability upon the PGVCL
though the deceased died due to his self-negligency. He would
further 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 7% interested granted by the learned trial Court is on
higher side. Upon above submissions, he prays to allow this
First Appeal.


6.     On the other hand, learned advocate for the original
claimants referring to para 13 of the impugned judgment
would submit that report at Exh.38 by the Deputy Engineer
itself sufficiently established that the deceased died due to
injury having been received from the current passing through
the transformer. He would further submit that the wires and
the running of electric energy in the wires was exclusively
under the control and management of employees of the

                                  Page 3 of 11
      C/FA/4022/2012                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026




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 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.23:-

             “1 Whether the plaintiff proves that the due
             negligency of the the said accurancy happened and
             late Mr.Ram bhai Ramsibhai died due to
             electrocution?

             2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover suit
             amount Rs. 7,00,000/- from the defendant?

             3. Whether the defendants proves that there were no
             death of Rambhai Ramsibhai due to the defendants
             negligency?

             4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any relief?

             5. What order and decree?”

                                 Page 4 of 11
      C/FA/4022/2012                               JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026




8.      Issue Nos.1 & 4 are answered in affirmative, issue No.2
in partly affirmative, issue No.3 in negatige and issue no.5 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."


10.     In H.S.E.B. v/s. Ram Nath [2004 (5) SCC 793], the



                                 Page 5 of 11
      C/FA/4022/2012                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026




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
             judgment of both the courts below and also the
             material and evidence particularly Exh.35 to support


                                Page 6 of 11
C/FA/4022/2012                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026




       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
       time of installation and maintenance of line to see that
       no accident occurs or the chances are minimized.


                           Page 7 of 11
      C/FA/4022/2012                                JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026




             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 – 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


                                Page 8 of 11
      C/FA/4022/2012                          JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026




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.


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 - 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
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


                               Page 9 of 11
      C/FA/4022/2012                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026




harm by taking precautions.


15.     In the aforesaid settled principles of law, the argument
of learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi that the deceased
suffered electrocution due to his own fault, as at the time of
accident, he tried to fix the fuse in transformer does not
survive. The PGVCL which is in business of selling hazardous
product viz. Electricity, 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. The concept of strict
liability assumes its different dimension that the liability is
strict upon the PGVCL. It is to be observed that no prudent
person would fix the fuse in the transformer so as to receive
electrocution case. To fix the fuse in a transformer is also the
liability of the PGVCL. However, the PGVCL failed to follow
its liability and therefore, it cannot take defence that the
deceased while fixing the fuse received current and due to
self-inflicted injury, he died.         It can also be seen that the
transformer which is installed on the poll is required to be
hermetically sealed, but here, it is a case where the
transformer was kept open and which has resulted into
accident.


15.     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.


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

                                 Page 10 of 11
         C/FA/4022/2012                                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026




  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 – claimants along
  with interest accrued thereon.


  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 10/07/2026 17:25:43




                                                      Page 11 of 11