Justice Vivek Jain, Madhya Pradesh High Court
Strict Liability Lies On Person Dealing With Dangerous Commodity: Madhya Pradesh Upholds Order Directing Electricity Board To Pay Compensation For Electrocution Death
|The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment passed by the Trial Court.
While upholding an order directing the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 4.45 Lakh to the family of a man who died due to electrocution, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the view that a person dealing with dangerous commodity has strict liability and the negligence of the person dealing with dangerous commodity is not required to be proved or established in case the accident takes place by leakage, pilferage or escape of the dangerous commodity.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit for compensation filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.
The Single Bench of Justice Vivek Jain held, “It is well settled in law that electricity is a dangerous commodity and a person dealing with dangerous commodity has strict liability and the negligence of the person dealing with dangerous commodity is not required to be proved or established in case the accident takes place by leakage, pilferage or escape of the dangerous commodity. Strict liability lies on the person dealing with dangerous commodity.”
“Even the act of third party, i.e. Defendant No.2 was made possible when there was active negligence of the appellant to maintain their supply system and take measures to prevent such malpractices”, it added.
Advocate Rakesh Kumar Tiwari represented the Appellant while Advocate Pawan Kumar Singh Sengar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The plaintiffs are the wife and children of deceased Ram Sumiran Kori, who expired while going to his farm for guarding his rice crop. At that time, the second defendant was alleged to have connected the electric wire from the electricity supply line of Electricity Board (appellant) for his own farm, which had been passing through the farm of the deceased. The deceased was stated to have taken the farm on contract from one Ram Mani and from the electricity pole, the wires were taken to the farm of second defendant through the farm of Ram Mani, which was taken on contract by the deceased. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court directed the appellant as well as the defendants to pay the amount of compensation of Rs 4.45 lakh to the plaintiffs jointly or severally.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted the case of the plaintiffs that the deceased was electrocuted by the electricity wires which were illegally pulled by the second defendant from the electricity pole of the first defendant.
The Bench took note of the fact that the witness of the first defendant before the Trial Court stated in his affidavit of examination-in-chief that due to a lack of resources with the Electricity Board, such types of accidents were unavoidable, especially when such an incident took place at night. The Bench found that he admitted such facts that established that there was a lack of reasonable care and precaution of the Electricity Board in taking measures to prevent such accidents.
On a perusal of the spot map, the Bench noted that the illegally pulled wires were taken up to a distance of 0.75 kilometres, i.e. about 750 metres from the electricity pole. Such type of wires to a distance of 750 metres were being pulled by a person in the village, and such illegal pulling of wires to a distance of 750 metres could not have been done in a single night. As per the Bench, this depicted that theft must have been taking place for a long time. The Bench thus refused to accept the stand of the appellants that in the night, if somebody had pulled some illegal wire, then it could not be monitored night and day by the Electricity Board.
“The manner in which the spot map depicts the illegal wires to be pulled makes it evident that it was not done in a single night or in a single day, but it was a planned attempt of theft of electricity and the Electricity Board even did not register any case of theft against the said person, though it took the defence that the sole liability in the accident lies with the defendant No.2”, it added.
Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: M.P. Electricity Board v. Anju Kori and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:44575)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Rakesh Kumar Tiwari
Respondent: Advocates Pawan Kumar Singh Sengar, Anmol Singh