35 Years On, Rajasthan High Court Enhances Compensation In Electrocution Death Case; Says Electricity Boards Strictly Liable
After around 35 years of the incident, Rajasthan High Court upheld the liability of the State for paying compensation in a case of death by electrocution due to a live wire that had broken and fallen on the ground. The bench of Justice Sandeep Taneja took into account the fact that the electricity line had not been repaired for a long time, and there was also negligence on part of the...
After around 35 years of the incident, Rajasthan High Court upheld the liability of the State for paying compensation in a case of death by electrocution due to a live wire that had broken and fallen on the ground.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Taneja took into account the fact that the electricity line had not been repaired for a long time, and there was also negligence on part of the deputed line-man, who was unavailable on duty at the relevant time.
While underscoring the principle of strict liability, the Court highlighted that since there was escape and transmission of electricity i.e. a dangerous substance, that caused harm, the State was liable.
For context, on the night of the incident, in 1991, the deceased was went out of her house, and got in contact with a live wire that was lying on the ground. When she started shouting after being electrocuted, neighbour ran to help her leading to his electrocution too, that resulted in death of both.
A civil suit for compensation was filed in relation to the death of the woman in which the court granted around Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.
Being dissatisfied, the appeal was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, and on the contrary, appeal was filed by the State challenging the award.
It was argued on behalf of the claimants that the electric line was in a bad condition and the State was not paying enough attention to it. Hence, the accident was the result of negligence, carelessness, and inaction of the State and its employees.
On the contrary, it was submitted by the State that as per the rules the maintenance of the line was due only before Diwali and beginning of the rainy season. On the night of the accident, there was a storm that led to falling of trees, and resulted in breaking of the live wire. Once this information was received in the morning, the supply was cut.
Further, it was argued that there was negligence on part of the deceased too since she was carelessly walking in the dark. Hence, the accident was an act of God for which the State could not be held liable.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted,
“A close analysis of the evidence available on record, reveals that the electricity line had not been repaired for a long time, and also that there was negligence on the part of line-man Bhanwar Singh who instead of being present on his duty, went to Bhinder on the night of the incident. The evidence nowhere reflect that any storm occurred on 08.04.1991 resulting into electric wire being broken down. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that they had properly maintained the electric line and that the accident was an Act of God, lacks merit.”
The Court further discussed the applicability of strict liability, and held that as per this principle the liability could arise even without proof of negligence if the escape or transmission of a dangerous substance, like electricity, caused harm.
In this background, the finding of the trial court was upheld, and the compensation was enhanced to around Rs. 1.2 lakhs to be paid with 6% interest from the date of filing of civil suit i.e. 1991.
Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.
Title: Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr. v Varda & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 288