Afr High Court
Case Details
HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.08.14 18:08:40 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:39064-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal No. 174 of 2024 1 - Smt. Suman Yadav Wd/o Late Manoj Kumar Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Ward No. 3, Mohlla-Bhantha Para Limgaon Charoda, P.S. And Tehsil - Malkharouda, District Sakti, (C.G.). 2 - Kumari Aditi D/o Late Manoj Kumar Yadav Aged About 7 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Suman Yadav, R/o Village Ward No. 3, Mohlla-Bhantha Para Limgaon Charoda, P.S. And Tehsil - Malkharouda, District Sakti, (C.G.). 3 - Akash Kumar S/o Late Manoj Kumar Yadav Aged About 3 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Suman Yadav, R/o Village Ward No. 3, Mohlla-Bhantha Para Limgaon Charoda, P.S. And Tehsil - Malkharouda, District Sakti, (C.G.). 4 - Tejram Yadav S/o Late Mohit Ram Yadav Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Ward No. 3, Mohlla- Bhantha Para Limgaon Charoda, P.S. And Tehsil - Malkharouda, District Sakti, (C.G.).
Legal Reasoning
“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 damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” 12. The aforesaid principle of law laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher (supra) was followed with approval by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matters of Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India3 and Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai4 which has been reiterated in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.5. 2 (1868) 3 HL 330 3 (1990) 1 SCC 613 4 (1987) 3 SCC 234 5 (2001) 2 SCC 9 10 13. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court went a step ahead in the matter of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India6 and held as under :- “Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.” 14. The aforesaid propositions have been relied upon by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shail Kumari (supra), a case relating to death by electrocution wherein it has been observed as under :- “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 could be avoided by 6 (1987) 1 SCC 395 11 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. X X X 14. The Privy Council has observed in Quebec Rly., Light, Head and Power Co. Ltd v. Vandry7 that the company supplying electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent. Even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account of a violent wind and high-tension current found its way through the low-tension cable into the premises of the respondents was held to be not a justifiable defence. Thus, merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road.” 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shail Kumari (supra), the trial Court has rightly held that defendants are liable for payment of compensation to the plaintiffs for the death of Manoj Kumar Yadav on account of electrocution, however, the trial Court has committed error in not granting just and fair compensation to the 7 1920 AC 662 12 plaintiffs. It was the duty of the trial Court to assess and grant fair compensation to the plaintiffs. Admittedly, deceased Manoj Kumar Yadav was aged about 35 years at the time of the incident and must have been earning Rs. 8,400/- per month as he worked as an unskilled labourer and earned through agricultural work and thus, his yearly income would be Rs. 1,08,000/- and after making a deduction on account of his personal expenses, it would be fair to enhance the amount of compensation granted by the trial Court and we hereby enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 10,00,000/-. After deducting the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as awarded by the trial Court, the respondents / defendants No. 1 to 4 would be jointly and severally entitled to pay an additional amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the appellants/plaintiffs with an interest of 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 31/10/2023 till the date of its realization within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this jugdment. Rest of the conditions of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain the same. 13 16. Accordingly, this first appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). 17. A decree be drawn up accordingly. 18. While parting with the record, we appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned amicus curiae, who not only argued the case at length on short notice but has also brought relevant facts and legal position to our notice and further submitted written submission. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- /- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Harneet
Arguments
5 - Smt. Noni Bai W/o Tejram Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Ward No. 3, Mohlla-Bhantha 2 Para Limgaon Charoda, P.S. And Tehsil - Malkharouda, District Sakti, (C.G.). … Appellants/Plaintiffs versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl) Through Managing Director And Director, Behind Rajkumar College, Dangniya Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.). 2 - Executive Engineer (O And M) Division CSPDCL, District Sakti (C.G.). 3 - Assistant Engineer (Finance) CSPDCL, District Sakti (C.G.). 4 - Junior Engineer CSPDCL Adbhar, District Sakti (C.G.). 5 - Chief Electrical Inspector Bairan Bazar, Favaara Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents/Defendents For Appellant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Brajendra Singh, Advocate As Amicus Curaie : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board 06.08 .2025 3 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 16/07/2024 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, District Janjgir- Champa in Civil Suit No. 16-B/2023 whereby the suit of the plaintiffs has partly been decreed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with an interest of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment has been granted in their favour for the death of Manoj Kumar Yadav on account of electrocution and enhancement of the aforesaid compensation amount has been sought by the appellants/plaintiffs in the instant appeal. (For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.) 4 2. The aforesaid challenge to the impugned judgment and decree has been made on the following factual backdrop :- (i) On 06/08/2023 at about 10:45 AM, deceased Manoj Kumar Yadav, who was working in his agricultural field, siphoned electricity by clandestine pilferage for running the water pump and came in contact with live wire and died on the spot due to electrocution. (ii) Plaintiffs, who are wife, two children and parents of deceased Manoj Kumar Yadav, respectively, filed a suit seeking compensation of Rs. 35,00,000/- stating inter alia at the time of death, deceased was aged about 35 years and was an able-bodied person and he used to work as a Mechanic as well as a Farmer and Labourer and earned Rs. 10,000/- per month to fulfill the needs of his family/plaintiffs and respondents are responsible for the death of the deceased, therefore, they are liable for payment of compensation. (iii) Defendants No. 1 to 4 filed their written statement jointly and opposed the averments made by the plaintiffs and stated that there was no 5 negligence committed on the part of the defendants, therefore, they are not liable for payment of compensation, if any. (iv) Defendant No. 5 filed separate written statement and also opposed the plaint averments and stated that deceased Manoj Kumar was illegally siphoning electricity to his field for running water pump on account of which he came into contact with live wire and died by electrocution, therefore, he himself is responsible and the plaintiffs’ suit is liable to be dismissed. (v) Learned trial Court, after relying upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari1, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by impugned judgment and decree dated 16/07/2024 and granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by which, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred the instant first appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of award. 1 AIR 2002 SC 551 3. Learned trial Court framed 4 issues and answered 6 them as stated below :- वाद ्ቚ् 1) क्या, निद(cid:7)ांक 06.08.2023 को ्ቇाम बजे भर! लि(cid:19)मगाँव चरौदा में सुबह (cid:19)गभग 10:45 खार खेत में काम करते समय म(cid:7)ोज कु मार यादव के निबज(cid:19)ी खंभा के स्टैंड तार के संपक(cid:11) में आ जा(cid:7)े के कारण निव्ቕुत करेंट (cid:19)ग(cid:7)े से म(cid:7)ोज कु मार यादव की मृत्यु हो गयी थी ? म(cid:7)ोज कु मार यादव की मृत्यु 2) क्या, ्ቚतितवादीगण की उपे्ቌा एवं (cid:19)ापरवाही के कारण हुयी थी ? नि(cid:7)ष्क्ቧ(cid:11) ्ቚमाणिणत ्ቚमाणिणत 3) क्या, वादीगण छतितपूቔኌत ्ቚा् कर(cid:7)े की वादीगण, ्ቚतितवादी ्ቅमांक 1 से 4 अति;कारी है ? यनिद हाँ तो निकत(cid:7)ा और निकससे ? 4) सहायता एवं व्यय ? से संयु्ሹतः अथवा पृथ्ሹः 4,00,000/- रूपये मय ब्याज छतितपूቔኌत पा(cid:7)े के अति;कारी है | नि(cid:7)ण(cid:11)य की कं तिडका 22 के अ(cid:7)ुसार 4. In sum and substance, the trial Court has held that on 06/08/2023 at about 10:45 AM at village Limgaon, Charouda, the deceased Manoj Kumar Yadav had gone to work in his agricultural field and he came in contact of a live wire and died due to electrocution on account of rash and negligent act of the defendants and awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation in favour of the plaintiffs. 5. Mr. Basant Dewangan, learned counsel appearing 7 for the appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- only instead of Rs. 35,00,000/- as claimed by the appellants/plaintiffs and additional 40% ought to have been added as future prospect as the deceased was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident, as such, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the trial Court be enhanced. 6. Mr. Brajendra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/defendants, would submit that deceased died due to electrocution while making an unauthorized and illegal connection (hooking) from the electric supply line, as such, the respondents/defendants cannot be held responsible for his death and therefore, the trial Court has erred in granting the aforesaid compensation in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the respondents/defendants, thus, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8 7. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Amicus Curaie, has brought relevant decisions of the Supreme Court to our notice and has assisted in deciding the issue involved in this appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The point for determination in this appeal is, “Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled for enhancement of the amount of compensation as has been awarded by the trial Court ?” 10. The trial Court has considered the issue and while computing the amount of compensation, has assessed the income of deceased Manoj Kumar Yadav as Rs. 8,400/- per month on the basis of Schedule ‘A’ of the notification issued by the Office of Labour Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, wherein the wage rate for unskilled labour employed in agriculture from 01/04/2023 to 30/09/2023 has been fixed at Rs. 8,400/- per month and thereafter, proceeded to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- 9 which is sought to be enhanced by the plaintiffs by way of this appeal. 11. The claim of the plaintiffs is based on the doctrine of strict liability which was propounded in the matter of Rylands v. Fletcher. J. Blackburn 2 wherein the author of the said judgment observed as under :-