Karnataka High Court Awards ₹10.52 Lakh To Parents Of Boy Electrocuted While Retrieving Kite, Quashes Finding On Child's Negligence

Th single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the plea filed by parents of the boy while holding that electricity authorities [Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited and its officers] cannot escape liability on the claim that the child climbed the pole himself.

The court, hence, declared that the respondents HESCOM, and its officers would be liable to compensate the parents on the principle of strict liability.

"The doctrine of strict liability leaves no manner of doubt that the respondents are legally liable to compensate the parents of the deceased child. The tragic death of an elevenyear-old child due to contact with a live high-tension electrical installation cannot be brushed aside by attributing negligence to the child himself. The responsibility for ensuring that such dangerous installations do not become death traps rests squarely upon the electricity authorities. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the 'Negative' and the impugned award deserves to be interfered with"

After perusing the facts on record, the court said:

“…. Electricity is an inherently dangerous agency. Unlike ordinary objects, electricity is invisible, silent and lethal. A person who undertakes the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity owes an exceptionally high degree of care to every member of the public who may come into its proximity…Ordinary citizens, much less children, have absolutely no control over the manner in which these installations are erected, maintained or safeguarded. Consequently, the law casts upon the electricity authorities an absolute duty to ensure that no member of the public suffers injury on account of escape or contact with live electricity”.

Though the respondent authorities tried to press on contributory negligence, the court refused to entertain such an attempt. It said that an eleven-year-old child cannot be equated with a prudent adult, wherein the former are naturally curious. 

"They are attracted towards flying kites, trees, electric poles and other objects which adults may ordinarily avoid. Such conduct is entirely consistent with normal childhood behaviour…” the court explained. 

The Court added further that the authorities were fully aware that high-tension lines passed through inhabited areas and private lands where villagers, agriculturists and children regularly move about, and hece strict liability would apply, by relying on M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Others (2002).

“….The possibility of children attempting to retrieve kites from poles or trees is neither remote nor extraordinary. It is a foreseeable human conduct…. Once such conduct is foreseeable, the respondents were duty-bound to ensure that the dangerous installation was rendered inaccessible by adopting adequate protective measures such as effective fencing, anti-climbing devices, protective guards, warning systems or any other preventive mechanism..”, the court laid down in unequivocal terms.

The court emphasised that the question of whether the child touched the pole inadvertently, or climbed the electric pole, is insignificant for awarding compensation. The spot inspection report prepared immediately after the incident clearly indicated that strands of hair and portions of skin of the deceased were found adhered to the electric pole, which established that the child came in contact with a live electric installation nevertheless, the court opined further.

“….Therefore, the factual controversy as to whether the child merely touched the pole or had climbed the pole loses significance. The fundamental and undisputed fact remains that the child died because he came into contact with a live high-voltage electrical installation maintained by the respondent-Electricity Company…”, the Court observed by noting that the respondent authorities like HESCOM alone have exclusive control over high-tension electric installations for commercial and public utility purposes.

The minor boy had gone out for grazing cattle when he was electrocuted while trying to retrieve a kite stuck between a high-tension electric line. Consequently, an FIR was registered by Marihal police Station, post which the parents issued a notice seeking Rs 10 lakhs as compensation from HESCOM.

However, as per the petitioners, the respondent company never replied to the legal notice. Aggrieved, legal proceedings were initiated before Lok Adalat for damages. The Adalat dismissed the claim on the ground that the child himself climbed the electric pole which proved his negligence in the incident.

Allowing the parent's petition, the court set aside the Lok Adalat's award, granting compensation of Rs 10.52 lakhs to be paid by HESCOM, after applying the multiplier method adopted under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The court reasoned that in the absence of a specific statutory mechanism for electrocution cases, MV Act would be a fair, rational and uniform basis for assessing compensation.

Case Title: Gudadappa Rudrappa Talawar & Anr. v. The Section Officer, HESCOM, Balekundri Kh Section & Ors.

Case No: WP No. 114767 of 2015

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 359