Introduction:
In Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Another v. Heirs of Deceased Rambhai Ramshibhai Lakhatrana & Others [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 198], the Gujarat High Court reaffirmed the principle that electricity distribution companies engaged in the supply of electricity, an inherently hazardous activity, owe a strict and absolute duty to ensure public safety. Delivering the judgment, Justice J.C. Doshi dismissed an appeal filed by Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) challenging the order of the trial court, which had directed the company to pay compensation of ₹3,41,400 along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the legal heirs of a man who lost his life due to electrocution.
The case arose out of a tragic incident involving Rambhai Ramshibhai Lakhatrana, who died after coming into contact with electricity from a transformer situated near a public road during rainy weather. According to the electricity company, the deceased had attempted to repair or replace a fuse inside the transformer and was electrocuted because of his own negligent conduct. The company argued that the accident was self-inflicted and that no liability could therefore be fastened upon it.
The legal heirs of the deceased, however, disputed this version. They contended that the transformer had been left in an unsafe condition, was not properly sealed, and lacked adequate maintenance. According to them, the negligence rested entirely with the electricity company, whose statutory and public duty was to ensure that electrical installations remained safe for members of the public. They argued that the death occurred solely because the company had failed to maintain the transformer in accordance with the safety standards expected from an authority dealing with a highly dangerous commodity.
The dispute ultimately required the High Court to examine the scope of the liability of electricity companies engaged in hazardous activities, the applicability of the doctrine of absolute liability, and whether contributory negligence could be attributed to a deceased person who allegedly attempted to repair a defective transformer.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellant, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, contended that the trial court had erred in fastening liability upon the company without properly considering the conduct of the deceased. According to the company, Rambhai Ramshibhai Lakhatrana was not merely a passer-by who accidentally came into contact with a live electric installation. Instead, he had voluntarily attempted to repair or replace the fuse in the transformer despite having no authority or technical expertise to undertake such work.
The company argued that the accident occurred solely because of the deceased’s own negligence. It submitted that if an individual knowingly interferes with electrical equipment, the consequences of such conduct cannot automatically be attributed to the electricity supplier. Therefore, it was contended that the deceased’s own actions constituted the proximate cause of the accident, thereby absolving the company of liability.
The appellant further challenged the award of compensation granted by the trial court, submitting that there was no legal basis to hold the company responsible where the victim himself had undertaken an unsafe and unauthorised act.
The respondents, representing the legal heirs of the deceased, opposed the appeal by asserting that the transformer had been maintained in a highly unsafe condition. They argued that the transformer was not properly sealed and remained exposed, creating an obvious and foreseeable danger to members of the public. According to the claimants, the company had completely failed in its statutory obligation to ensure proper maintenance and safety of its electrical infrastructure.
The respondents also argued that electricity is an inherently hazardous substance capable of causing instant death. Consequently, the law imposes a much higher duty of care upon electricity distribution companies than upon ordinary public authorities. They submitted that maintenance of transformers, electrical lines and related equipment is exclusively the responsibility of the electricity company and cannot be shifted onto ordinary citizens.
It was further argued that no reasonable person would intentionally expose himself to fatal electrocution merely to repair a fuse. Therefore, the company could not avoid its liability by alleging negligence on the part of the deceased when its own failure to maintain the transformer had created the dangerous situation in the first place.
Court’s Judgment:
After examining the evidence and the legal principles governing liability arising from hazardous activities, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the compensation awarded by the trial court.
The Court observed that electricity is an inherently dangerous substance capable of causing severe injury or death even upon minimal exposure. Because of the extraordinary risks associated with generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, the law imposes a strict and continuing obligation upon electricity companies to ensure that all electrical installations are maintained in a safe condition.
Justice J.C. Doshi referred to the settled doctrine of absolute liability, evolved through various judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court. The Court observed that enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities cannot ordinarily escape liability by pleading absence of negligence or by shifting responsibility onto the victim. The obligation imposed upon such entities is significantly higher because their activities create exceptional risks to public safety.
Applying these principles, the Court rejected the principal defence raised by PGVCL that the deceased himself was responsible because he attempted to repair the transformer fuse.
The Court made the significant observation that no prudent person would attempt to repair a transformer merely to suffer electrocution. Such an assumption, according to the Court, was contrary to ordinary human conduct and common sense. The Bench observed that maintenance and repair of electrical transformers is not the responsibility of ordinary citizens but exclusively that of the electricity company.
The Court categorically held that the responsibility to inspect, maintain and repair transformers rests entirely with PGVCL. If the company fails to discharge this statutory obligation, it cannot subsequently rely upon the victim’s alleged conduct to escape liability.
An important factor influencing the Court’s conclusion was the condition of the transformer itself. The evidence disclosed that the transformer had been left open instead of being properly sealed. The Court observed that transformers carrying high-voltage electricity are required to be hermetically sealed so as to prevent accidental human contact. Failure to maintain this essential safety feature demonstrated negligence on the part of the electricity company.
The Court further emphasised that the duty of electricity companies extends beyond merely supplying electricity. They are under a continuing legal obligation to inspect, maintain and supervise their transmission lines, transformers and related installations so that electricity does not escape in a manner capable of endangering human life.
The Bench observed that electricity transmitted through overhead lines and transformers possesses enormous destructive potential. Therefore, every electricity distribution company must adopt the highest degree of care in installation, maintenance and supervision of its infrastructure. Any lapse in fulfilling these obligations exposes innocent members of the public to grave risks.
Rejecting the company’s plea of contributory negligence, the Court held that the doctrine of absolute liability substantially limits such defences where hazardous activities are involved. Even assuming that the deceased had attempted to address the problem with the transformer, such conduct did not absolve the electricity company of its independent statutory obligation to maintain safe electrical installations.
The Court reasoned that if electricity companies were permitted to escape liability simply by alleging negligence on the part of victims, the very purpose of imposing strict obligations upon entities dealing with hazardous substances would be defeated. Public utilities entrusted with dangerous activities cannot dilute their responsibility by attributing blame to individuals after accidents have occurred.
The High Court also recognised the broader public law implications of such cases. Electricity is an essential public utility, and members of the public necessarily come into proximity with electrical infrastructure installed on roadsides, residential areas and public places. Consequently, electricity companies must anticipate foreseeable risks and take preventive measures before accidents occur rather than merely responding after lives have been lost.
The Court observed that adequate maintenance, timely inspection, proper sealing of transformers, prompt replacement of defective components and strict adherence to safety standards are integral aspects of the company’s statutory duty. Any failure in these respects exposes the company to legal liability for injuries and fatalities resulting from electrical accidents.
Finding no legal infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning, the Gujarat High Court upheld the decree directing PGVCL to pay compensation of ₹3,41,400 along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The judgment serves as a significant reaffirmation of the doctrine of absolute liability in cases involving hazardous public utilities. It reinforces that electricity companies cannot evade responsibility by alleging negligence on the part of victims when their own failure to maintain electrical installations has contributed to the accident. The decision also underlines that maintenance of transformers and other electrical infrastructure is a non-delegable duty resting solely upon the electricity distribution company. By prioritising public safety over technical defences, the Gujarat High Court has strengthened the legal accountability of electricity providers and reaffirmed that entities engaged in hazardous activities must bear the consequences of failures in maintaining adequate safety standards.