Case at a Glance
A 51-year-old man died on 6 October 2023 after touching an energised earthing wire on an electricity pole near a pond embankment in Sakti. His widow, two sons and mother sued the power distribution company, and the civil court awarded ₹11,69,890 with 6% interest. In the company’s appeal, a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court applied the rule of strict liability, held that the family did not have to prove negligence, and rejected the plea of illegal tapping by a third party. The Bench recomputed the heads of compensation but the total of ₹11,69,890 with 6% interest remained the same.
On 6 October 2023, Amritdas Mahant left home saying he was going to his field and went towards the Dabri pond. There he came into contact with an energised earthing wire on an electricity pole and was electrocuted; he was declared dead at the Community Health Centre, Sakti, and the post-mortem recorded electric shock as the cause of death. His widow, two sons (minors, suing through her) and his mother filed a civil suit claiming ₹20,96,000, saying he earned about ₹12,000 a month from transport work and agricultural labour.
The First District Judge, Sakti decreed the suit in part on 29 August 2024, finding death by electrocution due to negligence and lack of maintenance, and awarded ₹11,69,890 with 6% interest against the officers of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company jointly or severally. The company appealed, arguing the deceased was careless, the trial court did not identify any specific negligent act, the farmer whose field was involved was not impleaded, and the award was excessive.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is a power distribution company liable for a death by electrocution from its line even if negligence is not specifically proved and a third party may have tampered with the wires?
Strict Liability for a Hazardous Activity
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, writing for the Bench, read Sections 53 and 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to hold that public safety is integral to a distribution licensee’s duties. It was undisputed that death was by electrocution; the company’s own Junior Engineer admitted this. Relying on M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, (2002) 01 SC CK 0088 and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 05 SC CK 0110, the Bench held that the supplier has a primary liability to compensate even in the absence of negligence, and that “the claimant is not required to establish negligence”. Even if someone had cut the PVC wires for illegal tapping, that did not break the chain of liability, as there was no evidence of an independent, unforeseeable event. An inspection done five months later could not show the condition on the day of the accident, and there was no evidence that the deceased knowingly entered a prohibited area. Nor did the family need to identify an individual negligent officer.
On quantum, the Bench followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha (decided 12 August 2026) that the Motor Vehicles Act multiplier method is not to be applied mechanically, while taking guidance from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 10 SC CK 0044 and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 04 SC CK 0222. As no proof of income was produced, it accepted the minimum wage for unskilled labour of ₹10,100 a month, added 10% future prospects, deducted one-fourth for personal expenses (four dependants), and applied a multiplier of 11 for age 51, giving loss of dependency of ₹10,99,890. With ₹40,000 for loss of consortium to the widow and ₹30,000 to the claimants, and the separate awards for loss of estate and funeral expenses set aside, the total remained ₹11,69,890.
What the Court Actually Held
- The power company and its officers (defendants 1–4) were held liable for the electrocution death; their liability was affirmed.
- In electrocution cases the rule of strict liability applies; the claimants need not prove negligence, and alleged third-party tampering does not by itself break the chain of liability.
- Compensation was recomputed on minimum wages, 10% future prospects, one-fourth deduction and a multiplier of 11, but the total of ₹11,69,890 remained unchanged.
- The appeal was allowed only in part, as to the method of computation; 6% annual interest from the date of the suit until realisation continues, and parties bear their own costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Electrocution from sagging or exposed lines is a recurring cause of rural deaths; the ruling confirms families need not prove which officer was negligent.
- It applies the Supreme Court’s August 2026 guidance in Rekha that MACT formulas are a guide, not a straitjacket, in electrocution compensation.
- It shows that a post-accident inspection report will carry little weight on the condition of the line at the time of the accident.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families of Victims
- A civil suit for compensation lies against the distribution company for electrocution deaths; strict liability applies.
- Keep the post-mortem report and police papers — proof of death by electric shock is central.
- Produce income proof; otherwise the court may fall back on minimum wages.
For Counsel
- Rely on Shail Kumari to shift the focus from negligence to the hazardous activity.
- A plea of illegal tapping needs evidence of an independent, unforeseeable cause to succeed.
- Cite Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation v. Rekha on flexible use of the multiplier.
Key Takeaways
- Strict liability applies to deaths caused by electricity supply lines.
- Claimants need not prove negligence or identify the negligent officer.
- Third-party tampering does not automatically absolve the supplier.
- The MACT multiplier is a guide, not a rigid rule, in electrocution claims.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the family have to prove the power company was negligent?
No. Applying strict liability, the Court held the claimant is not required to establish negligence in such cases.
Why was the income taken as ₹10,100 a month?
The family’s witness admitted no income or age documents were produced, so the minimum wage for unskilled labour on the date of the accident was used.
Did the High Court reduce the compensation?
No. It changed some heads of compensation but the total remained ₹11,69,890 with 6% interest from the date of the suit.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld ₹11.69 lakh compensation for a man electrocuted by a live earthing wire, holding the distribution company strictly liable without proof of negligence.
Practical takeaway: In electrocution deaths, sue the distribution licensee on strict liability and support the claim with income evidence; tampering pleas need real proof.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com