Electricity Department Strictly Liable In Electrocution Cases, Proof Of Negligence Not Needed: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of strict liability is applicable in cases of electrocution and the fault of employees of the electricity company in installing and maintaining the lines is irrelevant. It held that the burden to prove injury is on the person claiming compensation.

Holding that the compensation in cases of electrocution must be determined in accordance with the principles applicable to motor vehicle accident cases, Justice Sandeep Jain held,

“It is apparent that in cases of electrocution, the principle of strict liability is applicable and the plaintiff is not required to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the employees and servants of the defendant in maintaining the high tension electricity line, which snapped due to poor maintenance. The plaintiff has only to prove that he suffered injuries due to electrocution…”

Plaintiff, a labourer, was severely injured when a live over-head high voltage wire fell over him. Eventually, his hand had to be amputated. Plaintiff claimed to have sustained 65% permanent disability and blamed the appellant-defendant for not maintaining and repairing the electricity line. In the claim for compensation, plaintiff sought Rs. 6,80,00/- along with interest.

The Trial Court observed that due to the falling of the live wire, plaintiff was affected with gangrene and his hand had to be amputated and he had suffered 65% permanent disability. Observing that the plaintiff had been earning approx Rs. 200/- per day, the Court awarded compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs with 5% future interest per annum.

The U.P. State Power Corporation Limited challenged the award on grounds that the burden to prove the incident was on the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that once a high-tension wire snaps, electricity is automatically cut off and there is no question of electrocution. Further, it was argued that the plaintiff had not placed on record original medical records to show expenditure.

Further, it was argued that even if there is fault of the defendant, the compensation awarded by the Trial Court was excessive.

The Court observed that in Parvati Devi and Others vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others and MP Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari, the Supreme Court had held that in cases of death due to electrocution, the strict liability for compensation fell on the electricity authority and it was not upon the deceased/ injured to establish negligence of the authority. It was held that the authorities must necessarily be considered negligent.

In 2017, the Allahabad High Court in Yashpal Singh (Minor) vs. State of UP Thru. Princ. Secy.(Electricity) and 5 Others, held that in cases of electrocution by live wire, the authorities are necessarily strictly liable irrespective of the fact whether the injured/ deceased could have done anything to avoid such accident.

Applying the aforesaid case laws, Justice Jain held,

“in cases of electrocution by broken electricity line, the principle of strict liability is applicable and for obtaining compensation in such cases, the plaintiff is not supposed to prove that the Electricity Board or Power Corporation was negligent in maintaining the high tension electricity lines, which snapped due to the fault of the Board/Corporation. It is well settled that in cases of strict liability, the negligence of the defendant or its servants/employees is not to be proved. The plaintiff is only required to prove that he died or suffered injuries due to electrocution from the high tension electricity line of the defendant.”

Noting that the pleadings in plaint and examination and cross-examination of the witnesses all pointed towards the fact that the plaintiff had suffered severe injuries due to electrocution from a live wire which fell over him, the Court held that the plaintiff had established his case of strict liability of the electricity company regarding payment of compensation.

The Court held that the compensation of Rs. 12,500/- provided by the Collector to the plaintiff was also based on due inquiry and documentary and oral evidence.

Having upheld the liability of the appellant-defendant, the Court held,

“In the instant case the compensation is to be determined in the same manner, in which it is determined in a motor accident claim case, by considering the occupation of the plaintiff, his monthly income, nature of injuries whether simple or grievous, quantum of permanent disability, the earning capacity loss due to the permanent disability, and he is entitled to get compensation for future loss of earning due to permanent disability, treatment expenses incurred by him and to be incurred in future, compensation for loss of earning due to future prospects, compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, enjoyment of life, special diet and expenditure incurred on transportation.”

Applying the judgements of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi and others and Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another, the Court held that gangrene had resulted from the electrocution which eventually led to amputation of the arm. Though the Court opined that plaintiff had suffered 100% functional disability, it observed that since the plaintiff had not challenged the order of the Trial Court, it could not be granted the benefit.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with cost and order of the Trial Court was affirmed.

Case Title: U.P. State Power Corp. Ltd. v. Moh. Nisar Alias Bade Lalla 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 184

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 184

Click Here To Read/Download Order