Holding

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s decree and holding that PGVCL is absolutely liable for the plaintiff’s injuries under the principle of strict/absolute liability.

Summary

The plaintiff, a farmer, was electrocuted on 24‑Nov‑1998 when he came into contact with an earthing wire of a transformer owned by Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL), resulting in permanent total disability. He sued PGVCL for compensation of Rs 10,00,000, and the trial court partially decreed Rs 6,10,000 with interest. PGVCL appealed under CPC 96, contending the plaintiff’s own negligence and disputing the quantum of compensation. The High Court examined the applicability of the principles of strict/absolute liability in electricity supply, relying on precedents such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath, PGVCL v. Heirs of Chandrikaben Harpalsinh, M.P. Electricity Board v. Shailkumar and Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. v. Jignesh Gohil. It held that the supply of electricity is an inherently hazardous activity attracting absolute liability, making PGVCL liable irrespective of fault. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the trial court’s decree upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the plaintiff proved negligence on the part of PGVCL causing the electrocution
Whether the doctrine of strict/absolute liability applies to electricity supply companies
Whether compensation is payable to the plaintiff under the principle of absolute liability
Whether the appeal under CPC 96 should be allowed

Legislation cited

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948s. 5

Subjects

negligencestrict liabilityabsolute liabilityelectricity supplycompensationtorthazardous activityCPC 96appeal

Judgment

C/FA/85/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 85 of 2013

==========================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
BHIKHABHAI CHAGANBHAI BHAKHAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR VIMAL PATEL for VMP LEGAL(7210) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 16/07/2026

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 –
PGVCL challenges judgment and decree dated 14.9.2012
passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh,
whereby the learned trial Court has partly decreed Special
Civil Suit No.167 of 2001 filed by the plaintiff and directed the
PGVCL to pay Rs.6,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% 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 is
residing at Mendarda and doing farming. The defendant is the
Company duly constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity

Page 1 of 11
C/FA/85/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026

(Supply) Act, 1948. That on 24.11.1998, when the plaintiff
was going towards his farm and when passing near the
transformer, he came in contact with the earthing wire lying
on the ground and got electrocuted and experienced electric
shock resulting into serious injuries and permanent total
disability.

3.1 Claiming the aforesaid incident as absolute negligency
on the part of the PGVCL, the plaintiff has prayed for
compensation for his son 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 plaintiff. It is
the plaintiff 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 in
aforesaid terms in favour of the plaintiff.

3.4 Being aggrieved, the PGVCL 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 plaintiff 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

Page 2 of 11
C/FA/85/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026

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 it is trite law that in
order to win in a negligence lawsuit, the victim must establish
4 elements: (1) the wrongdoer owed a duty to the victim, (2)
the wrongdoer breached the duty, (3) the breach caused the
injury (4) the victim suffered damages. Unless and until the
plaintiff proves all the four elements, he is not entitled for any
compensation. Therefore, the learned trial court ought to
have rejected the suit of the plaintiff.

5.1 Learned advocate for the defendant would further submit
that the learned trial court has erred in considering the
monthly income of the plaintiff to be of Rs.5000/- though the
plaintiff has not produced on record any documentary
evidence to prove his monthly income. He would further
submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate
that disability of 50% assessed is on higher side.

5.2 Upon above submissions, he prays to allow this First
Appeal.

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

Page 3 of 11
C/FA/85/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026

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 plaintiff was self
negligent and due to his own negligency, he suffered
electrocution?

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

“(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, due to the
negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff was
electrocuted and suffered serious injuries and was
left with a permanent disability as a result of the
injury?

(2) Whether the plaintiff prove the treatment he
received for the injury and the physical damage he
suffered as a result of the injury?

3) Whether the plaintiff prove the income and means
of income as stated in para-4 of the claim?

(4) Is the the plaintiff entitled to the compensation
sought? If yes, how much?

(5) What order and decree?

8.1 Issue Nos.1 to 4 are answered in affirmative and issue

Page 4 of 11
C/FA/85/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026

no.5 is answered as per final order.

9. In this factual background, let 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
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

Page 5 of 11
C/FA/85/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026

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 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 plaintiff and

Page 6 of 11
C/FA/85/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026

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 thoroughly 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.
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.

Page 7 of 11
C/FA/85/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026

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 Deceased Jignesh
Jamanbhai Gohil, 2024 (0) JX(Guj) 898.

13. 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 plaintiff, more
particularly, when the fact suggests 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 new lines and it was
duty of employees of the defendant to do necessary test and

Page 8 of 11
C/FA/85/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026

produce test report and obtain permission from appropriate
authority to start electric current in the new lines. However,
no such permission was obtained by the defendant. Thus, the
present First Appeal requires fate of only dismissal.

14. 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 injury of the
plaintiff resulted from electrocution applying the principles of
strict and absolute liability.

15. 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

Page 9 of 11
C/FA/85/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026

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
harm by taking precautions.”

16. 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 earthing wire of the transformer
was kept lying on the earth and which has resulted into
accident.

17. The defendant hopelessly failed to bring any flaw in
impugned judgment and decree. The learned trial Court has
discussed and decided the issue of negligence
comprehensively and in its entirety. Thus, no interference is
warranted.

18. Resultantly, present First Appeal fails and stands
dismissed. CA, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of
accordingly. Decree to be drawn accordingly.

Page 10 of 11
C/FA/85/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026

19. If any amount is deposited with the learned trial Court,
the same shall be disbursed to the plaintiff along with interest
accrued thereon.

20. 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 16/07/2026 14:44:34

Page 11 of 11