Electricity Company 'Absolutely Liable' In Electrocution Death Case, Can't Escape By Blaming Deceased's Negligence: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that when energy transmitted through electricity line causes injury or death of a human being, who unknowingly comes in contact with it, then it is primary liability of the Electricity Company to compensate the sufferer as per the principle of absolute liability. [2026 LiveLaw (Gu) 168]

The court was hearing an appeal by Gujarat Energy Transmission Co. Ltd. (GETCO), challenging a judgment and decree dated 31.1.2012 passed by trial court which had directed GETCO to pay Rs.9,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization for the death of Gemarsinh Sodha.

Justice JC Doshi said:

"Apt to note that if energy so transmitted through electricity line causes injury or death of a human being, who unknowingly come in contact with it, then it is primary liability of the Electricity Company to compensate the sufferer in view of principle of absolute liability. Electricity transmitted through the wires has potentiality of dangerous dimension. To add, it is the duty upon the Electricity Company to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such electricity or to see that such wire does not expose risk to human being".

The court said that 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 said that the concept of strict liability or absolute liability differs from concept of fault liability which arises on account of negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions.

The deceased Gemarsinh Sodha used to work as a Maldhari (owner of livestock). When he was proceeding along with sheep and goats, and had reached near an open Tube well, due to the wind he came into contact with a 66 k.v. line was passing through the branches of a tree. The deceased was electrocuted because of the current and died subsequently.  

GETCO claimed that it was due to the deceased's negligence that the incident took place. It was submitted had the deceased taken proper care, the mishap would have been avoided and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error in deciding the issue of negligence against the GETCO. 

The court referred to M.C. Mehta v/s. Union of India [AIR 1987 SC 1086], whereby the Supreme Court extended principles of strict liability involved in case of Rylands v. Fletcher, 1868 3 HL 330 and held it to be absolute liability.

"There is no cavil that the appellant is engaged in the business of selling hazardous product viz. Electricity. It is the liability of the appellant – GETCO to maintain all the wires to have insulated them to prevent the incident. If any incident occurs, the principle of absolute liability shall be attracted. Thus, without touching the merits of the case considering the fact that the GETCO is engaged in selling the hazardous substance, is required to pay compensation for death of the deceased applying the principles of strict and absolute liability," the court said. 

Applying the principle of strict liability the court dismissed GETCO's appeal. 

Case title: GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD THROUGH v/s  NANIBA WD/O GEMARSINH RUPSINH SODHA & ORS

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1310 of 2012

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gu) 168