Illegal connection no excuse: Chhattisgarh High Court holds electricity board liable for electrocution death

Findings

• The electricity board cannot defend itself by arguing that somebody committed mischief by “siphoning” such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such a diverted line. The managers of the supply system should prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices.
• The father has proved that there was an illegal electricity connection, and his son came into contact with a live wire and died.
• The electricity department failed to establish that they were not the providers of the said electricity connection; nor did they demonstrate that they took the requisite measures to maintain the system or minimise pilferage.
• The trial court rightly fastened the liability on the electricity board.
• The court referred to diffrent supreme court’s decision in other cases on similar lines and pointed out the doctrine of strict liability
• Strict liability is a liability which says that “if a person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril; and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape”.

Background

• The victim, aged 16, was electrocuted by a live wire that was allegedly laid without proper precautions and died in 1996.
• His father filed for compensation amounting to Rs 1.5 lakh on account of the death of his son, pointing out that the electricity connection by the appellants was in contravention of the directions issued by the electricity department, and the electric lines were hanging at a lower height.
• The electricity department denied the allegations mentioned by the victim’s father.
• The private individual rejected the allegation of pilferage of electric energy and stated that a temporary connection was provided by the department itself.

• The trial court awarded compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh to the victim’s father to be paid by the electricity department in 2004.

Arguments

• The counsel appearing for the electricity department, advocate K R Nair, argued that the trial court had committed an error of law since an illegal electricity connection was obtained by the private individual without the knowledge of the department.
• Nair further submitted that the private individual alone should be mulcted with the burden of damages.
• He prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
• On the other hand, advocte Diksha Jaiswal appearing for the father supported the order passed by the trial court.