Introduction:

In a significant decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed the principle of strict liability in a case involving the electrocution death of a woman at her residence. The bench, comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, upheld the liability of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) for the tragic incident. Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Ors. (2002), the Court reiterated that an entity engaged in hazardous activities is liable for harm caused, irrespective of negligence or fault.

This case arose from a civil suit filed by the deceased woman’s husband and children, seeking compensation of ₹11 lakh. They attributed the incident to CSPDCL’s failure to maintain electrical safety measures. While the trial court held the power company liable and awarded compensation of ₹10,37,680, CSPDCL appealed the decision, arguing that the accident was due to the homeowner’s faulty wiring and negligence. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s findings and reiterating that in cases involving hazardous activities, liability is absolute.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Plaintiffs’ Arguments:

The plaintiffs, the deceased woman’s husband and children, contended that the electrocution occurred due to CSPDCL’s negligence in maintaining electrical safety systems, particularly the earthing mechanism. They argued that CSPDCL failed in its statutory duty to ensure that its distribution infrastructure did not pose a hazard to consumers. Citing the principle of strict liability, they maintained that CSPDCL was accountable for the incident as the operation of electrical systems inherently involves hazardous activity.

The plaintiffs further pointed out that the deceased, while operating a bore pump at her residence, suffered fatal electrocution due to a safety lapse attributable to CSPDCL’s infrastructure. They sought compensation for dependency loss, mental agony, and funeral expenses, highlighting the financial and emotional toll on the family.

Defendant’s Arguments:

CSPDCL denied liability, asserting that the electrocution resulted from the homeowner’s improper internal wiring, which was beyond the company’s control. They argued that the deceased’s negligence in handling the bore pump contributed to the accident, absolving the company of responsibility.

CSPDCL further claimed that their infrastructure and services complied with the requisite safety standards and that any fault lay with the internal electrical setup maintained by the plaintiffs. The defendant sought to overturn the trial court’s findings, contending that strict liability should not apply in the absence of demonstrable negligence on their part.

Court’s Judgment:

• Upholding Strict Liability:

The High Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Rajani Dubey, upheld the trial court’s application of the principle of strict liability. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Ors. as a binding precedent, the Court emphasized that entities engaging in inherently hazardous activities bear absolute responsibility for any resulting harm, regardless of fault or negligence.

The Court noted that electricity distribution is classified as a hazardous activity under the law. Consequently, CSPDCL was liable for ensuring the safety of its electrical infrastructure and systems. The Court dismissed CSPDCL’s argument that the accident was due to the homeowner’s internal wiring, stating that the company’s duty of care extended to preventing such incidents.

• Evidence Evaluation:

The Court reviewed the evidence presented at trial and found no infirmities in the trial court’s findings. It observed that the plaintiffs had established CSPDCL’s failure to maintain the earthing system as the proximate cause of the electrocution. The evidence supported the conclusion that CSPDCL’s negligence contributed significantly to the tragic incident, thereby invoking the principle of strict liability.

• Compensation Award:

The Court upheld the compensation awarded by the trial court, which included ₹9,67,680 for dependency loss and ₹70,000 for mental agony, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, with 9% annual interest from the date of the incident. It affirmed that the compensation was just and proportionate to the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

• Dismissing the Appeal:

In dismissing CSPDCL’s appeal, the Court underscored the importance of holding entities accountable for hazardous activities. It reiterated that the principle of strict liability serves as a safeguard for individuals who suffer harm due to such activities, ensuring that justice is delivered efficiently and effectively.