Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company v. Bajru Singh

3 - Ms. Janiya S/o Bajru Singh Aged About 10 Years Through Their Natural Father Bajru S/o Gabdu Singh, R/o Village Polmi Navapara, Police Station- Kukdur, Tehsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) (Plaintiff No.3) 4 - Devsingh S/o Bajru Singh Aged About 8 Years Through Their Natural Father Bajru S/o Gabdu Singh, R/o Village Polmi Navapara, Police Station- Kukdur, Tehsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) (Plaintiff No.4) 5 - Suddhu Ram S/o Suklu Ram Aged About 45 Years Resident- Village Sajankhar, Polmi, Police Station-Kukdur, Tehsil-Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) (Defendant No.2) 2 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) (Defendant No.3) ... Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant/Defendant No.1 : Mrs. Astha Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : None present, though served. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. D.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 6 : Mrs. Neeta Tulsani Thawani, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 02-04-2025

#1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

#2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment & decree dated

07.12.2023 passed by Upper District Judge, Kabeerdham (Kawardha) in Civil Suit No. 1 “B” / 2018 (Bajru Singh & others vs. Executive Engineer, CSPDCL) whereby the civil suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4 herein has been partly allowed and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been awarded against appellant and respondent No. 5 jointly & severally on account of death of Smt. Titri Bai, who is wife of respondent No.1 and mother of the respondents No.2 to 4/ plaintiffs herein. [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the plaint filed before the trial Court)

#3. Facts of the case leading to filing instant appeal are that plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the defendants pleading inter alia that on 03.07.2015, when Smt. Titri Bai, who was wife of plaintiff No. 1 and mother of plaintiffs No. 2 to 4, had gone to field ([ksr) site to collect forest produce, at that time, she came in contact 3 with live electric wire, therefore, she got electrocuted and died on the spot itself. It is pleading of plaintiffs that defendant No. 2 – Suddhu Ram had taken illegal electric connection through wire from the electric pole and spread that wire in the field ([ksr) to have hunt animals, but unfortunately Titri Bai (deceased) came in contact with that electric wire and succumbed to the electrocution. It was also pleading of the plaintiffs that being C.G. State Power Distribution Company, it is duty of defendant No. 1 to prevent illegal hooking and to safe life of citizens, but defendant No. 1 failed to comply with its duty, therefore, plaintiffs filed civil suit claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the defendants jointly & severally.

#4. Defendant No. 1/ appellant herein, filed its written statement stating inter alia that on 03.07.2015, defendant No. 2 – Suddhu Ram had taken electric connection by illegal hooking from the electric pole to the marriage place of his son, by hanging it for about 2 kilometers through trees, which was not easily visible by the naked eyes due to being hidden and because of such negligent act of defendant No. 2 – Suddhu Ram, deceased Titri Bai came in contact with that live electric wire tied by defendant No. 2 and got electrocuted and died on the spot itself. As such, there is no negligence on the part of defendant No. 1, rather deceased died because of complete negligence of defendant No. 2 – Suddhu Ram, hence, the defendant No. 1 is not liable for payment of any compensation.

#5. Defendant No. 2 – Suddhu Ram remained ex parte before the trial Court and he did not file any written statement before the trial Court.

#6. Based on pleading of both the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as four issues, recorded evidence adduced by parties and vide 4 impugned judgment & decree dated 07.12.2023, directed defendants No. 1 & 2 to pay compensation to the plaintiffs to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of impugned judgment & decree, failing which, interest @ 6 % per annum shall be payable on the aforesaid amount from the date of passing of impugned judgment & decree, till its actual payment.

#7. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, the appellant / defendant No. 1 has preferred instant first appeal challenging the same.

#8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

#9. From the perusal of record of trial Court as well as pleading of the parties, it is clear that deceased - Titri Bai died on 03.07.2015 due to electrocution, which has also been proved by plaintiffs by adducing their oral & documentary evidence that Titri bai had got electrocuted from live electric wire, which was illegally used by defendant No. 2 – Suddhu Ram from electric pole by illegal hooking. As such, the trial Court has rightly held responsible defendant No. 2 – Suddhu Ram for death of Titri Bai.

#10. Plaintiff – Bajru (PW-1) has stated in his deposition that the said illegal electric connection was taken and spread by defendant No. 2 – Suddhu ram for haunting animals, whereas, Manish Kumar Sahu (PW-2) – Assistant Engineer of Electricity Department (defendant No.1) has deposed that defendant No. 2 – Suddhu Ram, for lighting bulbs and use loudspeakers in the marriage place of his son, had surreptitiously hooked the wire directly from the electric pole. He has further deposed that alleged 5 illegal connection was taken from distance of two kms. through trees, and at some places that wire was not easily visible by the naked eyes.

#11. Thus, for whole purpose alleged illegal electric connection was taken by defendant No. 2 – Suddhu Ram, is contradictory; further if such illegal electric connection was taken by defendant No. 2, then it was duty of the officials of defendant No. 1 to have prevented such illegal hooking, particularly, considering the liability of Electric Company, which is “strict liability”.

#12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 : (AIR 2002 SC 551) elaborated the doctrine of “strict liability” which has its origin in English common law, in cases of death of a citizen due to snap electrocution where a very limited scope of defence was left to an incumbent, who is obliged to adhere to the requisite safety measures. The said principle of strict liability has been applied irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the Managers / Operators of undertaking with activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life. Paras 8, 9 & 10 are relevant and quoted hereinbelow:- “8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. 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”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e., the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm 6 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 any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.

#9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English common law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL330 : (1861/73) All ER Rep 1, Blackbur, J, the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision : (All ERp. 7E-F) “The true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damages which is the natural consequences of its escape”.

#10. There are seven exceptions formulated by means of case-law to the doctrine of strict liability. It is unnecessary to enumerate those exceptions barring one which is this : “Act of stranger i.e., if the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, the rule does not apply”. (Vide P.535, Winfield on Tort, 15th Edn.)” At para 12 of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari