C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2043 of 2011

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================

CHUNILAL GOVANBHAI PATEL

Versus

NARSIBHAI N PATEL & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS PJ DAVAWALA(240) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4

MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,2

==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 07/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree

dated 30.09.2006 passed by the Learned Civil Court, Navsari (for the

sake of brevity and convenience, hereinafter referred to as “Learned Civil

Court”) in Special Civil Suit No.44 of 2002 (Old Special Civil Suit

No.282 of 2000), whereby the appellant-defendant came to be directed to

pay a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- towards compensation together with simple

interest at the rate of 7.5% simple interest per annum from the date of the

suit. The appellant – Org. defendant No.1 (for the sake of brevity and

convenience, hereinafter referred to as “appellant”), has preferred the

captioned appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(“the Code” for short).

Page 1 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as

under:

2.1.The original plaintiffs – defendants herein, being the heirs of

deceased Narsibhai N. Patel, instituted the suit claiming compensation of

Rs.45,90,000/- on account of the death of Hitesh, the son of the original

plaintiff, aged about 23-24 years. The said Hitesh was employed with the

Surat Municipality drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- and also used

to assist in agricultural operations. The appellant, a resident of the same

village, had fixed the marriage of his daughter Madhuben on 20.05.2000

and had invited the family of the deceased. Pursuant to the invitation,

Hitesh went to the residence of the appellant and, while rendering

assistance in the marriage-related work as directed, came into contact

with a live electric wire and died on the spot due to electrocution.

2.2.The original plaintiffs alleged that the appellant, with the intention

of committing theft of electricity, had illegally drawn and left exposed

live electric wires in a negligent and careless manner, thereby creating a

dangerous situation which resulted in the fatal accident. It was further

alleged that defendants Nos.2 and 3, the electricity distribution

companies, failed in their statutory duty to prevent electricity theft and to

ensure safety of the supply lines. The original plaintiffs claimed

compensation under various heads including loss of future earnings for 35

years, loss of agricultural assistance, retirement benefits, mental agony

quantified at Rs.5,00,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The

appellant initially remained absent and suit proceeded against ex-parte;

later he filed a written statement denying the invitation, the alleged theft

Page 2 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

of electricity, any negligence on his part and asserting that the death

occurred due to contact with a wire taken from the field of one

Mansingbhai. Defendants Nos.2 and 3 denied any liability, contending

that none of their supply lines had broken and that the incident was solely

attributable to the private and illegal act of the appellant.

2.3.The suit came to be registered as Special Civil Suit No.282 of 2000

and was later renumbered as Special Civil Suit No.44 of 2002. Upon

conclusion of the trial, the Learned Civil Court partly decreed the suit.

2.4.By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Civil Court

held the original plaintiffs entitled to recover a total sum of Rs.3,70,000/-

from the appellant alone with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum from the date of the suit till realisation. The said amount

comprises Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss of dependency (assessed on the

basis of notional monthly income of Rs.2,000/-, after deducting Rs.500/-

towards personal expenses, and applying the multiplier of 15) and

Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and shock suffered by the family

members. The appellant was directed to deposit the amount within 30

days. The amount was ordered to be apportioned as 25% to plaintiff

No.1.1, 25% to plaintiff No.1.2 and 50% to plaintiff No.2, with 70% of

each share to be kept in fixed deposit for five years in a nationalised bank

of the original plaintiffs’ choice (without any right to raise loan or create

encumbrance thereon, but with liberty to receive periodical interest) and

the remaining 30% to be paid by account-payee cheque.

3. Submissions on behalf of Learned Advocate for the appellant:

Page 3 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

3.1.Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the

impugned judgment and decree passed by the Learned Civil Court in

Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 2002 (Old Special Civil Suit No. 282 of

2000) is illegal, perverse and contrary to the settled principles of the law

of torts as well as the evidence on record. It is submitted that the Learned

Civil Court has committed a grave error in partly decreeing the suit and

fastening sole liability of Rs. 3,70,000/- with interest upon the appellant.

3.2.It is further submitted that the Learned Civil Court has attached

undue weight to the examination-in-chief of the original plaintiffs’

witnesses while completely overlooking the material admissions elicited

in their cross-examination which favour the appellant. Conversely, the

deposition of the appellant has been brushed aside and disproportionate

importance has been given to stray portions of his cross-examination. The

entire finding of negligence, it is submitted, rests on pure hearsay

evidence which is wholly inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act.

The original plaintiffs having approached the Court with positive

assertions of illegal drawing of live wires and negligence, the burden of

proving the same lies entirely upon them and was never discharged which

cant be shifted on the appellant, which again is rebuttable which is not the

case on hand.

3.3.It is further submitted that the authorities cited on behalf of the

appellant were not considered at all. The panchnama relates to a field

situated 700–800 metres away from the appellant’s residence, yet the

Learned Civil Court proceeded solely on assumption as if the incident

Page 4 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

had occurred at the appellant’s house. Oral evidence of the original

plaintiffs themselves establishes that a cyclone had struck only two days

earlier and several electric wires were lying broken in the fields; this

crucial circumstance has been ignored. The appellant has held an

authorised electric connection for years and there was neither necessity

nor occasion for him to draw any unauthorised connection for the

marriage. The story of invitation and assistance is baseless and stands

contradicted.

3.4.It is also submitted that in the criminal proceedings arising from

the same incident the appellant was found innocent under Sections 39 and

43 of the Indian Electricity Act; this fact, though proceeded before the

Court, however the same was not adverted to. It is submitted that

defendants Nos. 1.1 and 1.2, being the brothers of the deceased, are not

entitled to any share in the compensation. Consequently, the quantum,

apportionment and directions regarding fixed deposits are also

unsustainable.

3.5.In support of his arguments, Learned Advocate for the appellant

has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of H.S.E.B. and others v. Ram Nath and others, (2004)

5 SCC 793.

3.6.On these premises, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and

decree be quashed and set aside in their entirety, the appeal be allowed

and the suit be dismissed.

Page 5 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

4. Submissions on behalf of Defendants Nos. 3 and 4:

4.1.Learned Advocate for Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 has submitted that

the said Defendants, being the electricity distribution companies, support

the findings recorded by the Learned Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No.

44 of 2002 to the extent that no liability has been fastened upon them.

4.2.It is submitted that the Learned Civil Court has correctly held on

Issues 1 to 4 that the unauthorised temporary connection was drawn by

the appellant alone on the day of the marriage (20.05.2000) by fixing a

hook on the GEB line near Mansingbhai’s well/DP and extending a PVC

wire towards his own premises. The Inspector’s report (Exh.-121/122),

the panchnama and the recovery of the burnt wire and hook the very next

day establish that the act was private, clandestine and of one-day duration

only. No application for temporary supply was ever made by the

appellant. In such circumstances, the companies had neither knowledge

nor opportunity to detect or prevent the temporary theft.

4.3.It is further submitted that the ordinary statutory duty to maintain

supply lines and to check for unauthorised connections cannot be

stretched to cover a purely private and momentary act committed by a

consumer on a single day. Once the Learned Civil Court found that the

appellant alone created the dangerous situation, the companies stood

rightly exonerated. The decree under challenge does not impose any

liability upon Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and that part of the judgment does

not call for interference.

Page 6 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

4.4.It is therefore prayed that the findings absolving Defendants Nos. 3

and 4 be confirmed and the appeal, so far as it may seek to shift any

liability upon these Defendants, be dismissed.

5. Submissions on behalf of on behalf of Defendants Nos. 1.1, 1.2

and 2:

5.1.Learned Advocate for Defendants Nos. 1.1, 1.2 and 2 has

submitted that the said Defendants adopt the submissions advanced on

behalf of Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 insofar as they affirm the exclusive

liability of the appellant and the absence of any negligence on the part of

the electricity companies. In addition, the following submissions are

urged in support of the decree.

5.2.It is submitted that the Learned Civil Court has rightly decided

Issues 1 to 3 in favour of the original plaintiffs. The invitation card (Exh.-

66) establishes that the appellant invited the family for the marriage of his

daughter. Dilipbhai Narsinhbhai (Exh.-65) has deposed that Hitesh went

to the appellant’s residence and came into contact with the live wire

drawn by the appellant through an unauthorised hook. The panchnama,

recovery of wire and hook, and the Inspector’s report (Exh.-121/122)

corroborate that the temporary connection was made for the marriage and

that the current passed through the galvanised wire of the mandap which

Hitesh was holding. The admissions elicited in cross-examination only

strengthen, and do not dilute, the case of unauthorised drawing of power

by the appellant.

Page 7 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

5.3.It is further submitted that the plea of hearsay is misconceived. The

factum of death by electrocution is undisputed; the cause and the person

responsible stand proved by the contemporaneous documents and the

surrounding circumstances. The cyclone of two days earlier and the

existence of an authorised connection do not exonerate the appellant from

the specific temporary theft committed by him on the day of the incident.

The outcome of the criminal case is neither binding nor relevant in the

present civil proceeding founded on negligence.

5.4.It is also submitted that on quantum, the Learned Civil Court has

adopted a just and conservative approach. In the absence of proof of

municipal employment, a notional income of Rs. 2,000/- per month for a

young graduate, personal deduction of Rs. 500/- and a multiplier of 15

years have been correctly applied, yielding Rs. 2,70,000/-. The further

sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony to the mother is moderate

and justified. The brothers, being legal heirs, have been rightly awarded a

share. The directions regarding deposit and apportionment are proper and

protective of the interests of the claimants.

5.5.The decree of Rs. 3,70,000/- with interest at 7.5 % per annum is

fully supported by the evidence and the principles of the law of torts. It is

therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed with costs and the judgment

and decree of the Learned Civil Court be confirmed in its entirety.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties, the following issues require consideration as emerge from the

material placed on record as also the conclusions arrived at by the learned

Page 8 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

Civil Court.

7. While examining the deposition of Dilipkumar, Electrical

Inspector, Surat, recorded at Exh.118, it is noticed that the said witness

has merely identified the signatures of the then Electrical Inspector Shri

J.N. Patel appearing on the report and the site sketch. The witness has

candidly admitted that he himself never visited the place of occurrence,

that he has no personal knowledge whatsoever of the incident, and that all

the papers collected by Shri J.N. Patel during the course of inquiry have

not been produced on the record of the present suit. The witness has

further stated that information regarding the fatal accident was received

from the Gujarat Electricity Board (“the Board” for short) itself and that

upon perusal of the report prepared by Shri J.N. Patel, no liability is

attributable to the Board.

7.1.The deposition of this witness, being purely formal in character and

bereft of any personal knowledge, does not advance the case of the

original plaintiffs in any manner so as to establish the specific

involvement of the appellant in the alleged act of unauthorised hooking of

the high voltage line. The learned Civil Court appears to have placed

reliance upon the report prepared by the Electrical Inspector without

noticing that the very witness through whom the said report was sought to

be proved has admitted non-production of the entire material collected

during the inquiry and has further expressed that the report does not

fasten any liability upon the Board. In the absence of the author of the

report having been examined and in the light of the clear admission that

the complete set of papers was never placed on record, the contents of the

Page 9 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

report cannot be pressed into service for drawing an inference of

negligence against the appellant on the basis of assumptions and

presumptions.

8. The evidence of Exh.118, therefore, far from establishing any

nexus between the appellant and the alleged temporary connection, rather

indicates that even the official inquiry conducted by the Electrical

Inspector did not culminate in fastening responsibility upon any particular

individual including the appellant, and the same cannot be read as

clinching material for holding the appellant solely liable for the

unfortunate incident.

9. Upon careful perusal of the report of the Electrical Inspector

prepared by Shri J.N. Patel and brought on record at Exh.121, it is noticed

that the inquiry was conducted on 02.06.2000 pursuant to information

received through telegram dated 25.05.2000. The report specifically

records that the fatal accident did not occur on account of any defect or

shortcoming in the line or system of the Board, but took place in a private

field belonging to Chunilal Govanbhai Patel on account of electricity

having been drawn by some unknown person in an unauthorised manner.

9.1.The report further discloses that during the course of inspection

carried out by the Electrical Inspector, no unauthorised wiring was found

existing at the place of occurrence for the reason that the same had

already been removed. The report proceeds to narrate, on the basis of the

earlier police panchnama, that to the west of the field of Chunilal

Govanbhai Patel there exists a well belonging to Mansingbhai

Page 10 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

Ranchhodbhai having a distribution point and an electric motor, and that

some unknown person is stated to have prepared a hook of aluminium

wire on the LT line of the Board near the said well, connected a yellow

coloured PVC wire of approximately 96 feet length and extended the

same up to the house of Chunilal for the purpose of the marriage mandap.

The report notes that the said PVC wire was found in a burnt and broken

condition.

9.2.Significantly, throughout the report the act of putting the hook and

drawing the temporary connection has been attributed only to some

unknown person, and nowhere has the appellant Chunilal Govanbhai

Patel been named as the person who committed the said act. The report

further records that on account of the PVC wire having been made to pass

over the galvanised iron wires of the mandap, and the ground being wet

due to recent rainfall, when the deceased Hiteshbhai came in contact with

the galvanised wire of the mandap, electric current passed through the

same resulting in the fatal shock.

10.Thus, even the contemporaneous official inquiry conducted by the

Electrical Inspector under the Indian Electricity Act does not contain any

specific finding pinning the responsibility of putting the unauthorised

hook upon the appellant. The learned Civil Court appears to have

proceeded on the assumption that since the mandap was erected in the

field of the appellant and the marriage was being solemnised at

appellant’s residence, the act of unauthorised drawing of electricity must

necessarily be attributed to him, without noticing that the official report

itself speaks only of an unknown person and further records that the

Page 11 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

temporary connection had already been removed by the time the

Inspector visited the site. In the absence of any specific accusation or

finding in Exh.121 naming the appellant as the person responsible for the

illegal connection, the said report cannot be pressed into service for

fastening exclusive liability upon the appellant on the basis of mere

proximity of the place of occurrence or the factum of the marriage

ceremony.

11.Upon further examination of the detailed inquiry report filled in

by the Electrical Inspector Shri J.N. Patel himself and exhibited at

Exh.122, it is seen that the said report has been prepared in the prescribed

form on 02.06.2000. The report records the voltage involved as 230 Volt

LT and specifically states under the relevant columns that the accident

occurred on account of an unauthorised electrical connection and that

after the accident the said unauthorised connection was removed.

12.In the column meant for recording the person responsible, the

Inspector has not named any individual and has indicated that specific

responsibility cannot be fastened upon any particular person. The detailed

opinion recorded in paragraph 11 of Exh.122 is in identical terms with the

narrative report at Exh.121. It reiterates that the field belongs to Chunilal

Govanbhai Patel, that a mandap of galvanised wires had been erected

therein, and that the deceased Hiteshbhai came in contact with the

galvanised wire of the said mandap.

13.The cause is again attributed solely to the act of some unknown

person who is stated to have prepared an aluminium hook on the nearby

Page 12 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

LT line meant for agricultural purpose, connected a PVC wire and

extended the supply in an unauthorised manner up to the residence of

Chunilal Govanbhai Patel. The report further notes that the bare portion

of the said PVC wire came into contact with the galvanised wires of the

mandap, thereby making the entire structure live, and that when the

deceased held the galvanised wire he received the fatal electric shock.

14.Thus, even in the formal structured report prepared by the

Electrical Inspector under the statutory rules, the act of putting the hook

and drawing the temporary connection continues to be attributed only to

an unknown person. Nowhere in Exh.122 has the appellant been

identified as the person who committed the unauthorised act. The

consistent use of the expression “by some unknown person” in both

Exh.121 and Exh.122 assumes significance, more particularly when the

temporary connection itself was not found existing at the time of

inspection and had already been removed.

15.The learned Civil Court, while fastening exclusive liability upon

the appellant, appears to have overlooked this vital feature emerging from

the official reports of the Electrical Inspectorate. The mere fact that the

mandap stood in the field of the appellant and that the marriage ceremony

was being held at his residence cannot, by itself, convert the act attributed

by the official inquiry to an unknown person into an act committed by the

appellant, in the absence of any specific finding or material in the

contemporaneous reports naming him as the author of the unauthorised

connection.

Page 13 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

16.The site sketch prepared by the Electrical Inspector and exhibited

at Exh.123 depicts the topography of the place of occurrence. On the

western side the overhead LT line of the Board is shown running on

poles. Adjacent thereto is marked the well belonging to Mansingbhai

Ranchhodbhai together with the distribution point. From the direction of

the said well, lines are shown extending eastwards towards the residential

premises of Chunilal Govanbhai Patel. In the intervening open area the

place of accident is indicated and the figure of the deceased Hiteshbhai is

shown standing near the galvanised wire structure of the mandap.

16.1.A plain reading of the sketch reveals that the source from which

the temporary connection is alleged to have been drawn is situated near

the well of Mansingbhai and not immediately adjoining the residential

house of the appellant. The sketch further demonstrates the distance

between the Board’s line / distribution point and the mandap area where

the deceased came in contact with the live galvanised wire.

16.2.Significantly, the sketch does not contain any endorsement or

marking attributing the act of putting the aluminium hook or extending

the PVC wire to the appellant. It merely records the physical location of

the well, the overhead line, the house of the appellant and the spot where

the deceased fell. When this sketch is read in conjunction with the reports

at Exh.121 and Exh.122, which consistently attribute the unauthorised

connection to some unknown person, the absence of any specific

indication in the contemporaneous site plan naming the appellant as the

author of the illegal act becomes all the more glaring.

Page 14 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

17.The learned Civil Court appears to have proceeded on the premise

that since the mandap stood in the field of the appellant the temporary

connection must have been drawn by him, without appreciating that the

official sketch itself places the origin of the alleged hook near the well of

a third party and does not fasten the act upon the appellant by any direct

marking or notation. In the absence of such specific material emerging

from the site plan prepared by the Electrical Inspector, the sketch cannot

be pressed into service for drawing an inference of exclusive negligence

against the appellant.

18.The appellant Chunilal Govanbhai Patel has stepped into the

witness box and his deposition has been recorded at Exh.130. In his

examination-in-chief the appellant has stated that on the day of the

incident the marriage of his daughter was being solemnised and that in

accordance with the prevailing village custom the family of the original

plaintiffs, being related, had also been invited. He has specifically

deposed that he remained present at his residence throughout the day in

connection with the marriage ceremonies and that the electricity required

for the lights was drawn from his own authorised domestic connection.

He has categorically denied having drawn any temporary connection

from any other source.

18.1.The appellant has further stated that he had not called the deceased

for any work connected with the marriage and that the deceased had been

invited only for the meal. He has pointed out that the distance between his

residential house and the agricultural field is approximately 300 metres

and that the dead body of Hiteshbhai was found near the field of

Page 15 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

Mansingbhai. He has produced the certified copy of the judgment of the

criminal court at Vansda whereby he was acquitted of the charges

levelled against him under the Indian Electricity Act, which has been

marked as Exh.131.

18.2.In cross-examination the appellant has admitted the factum of

invitation and the erection of a mandap with arrangement for lights and

mike. He has also admitted that the house where the marriage was held is

situated within his field and that a galvanised wire structure existed for

the cultivation of parval. However, he has consistently denied having

drawn any unauthorised wire from the electric pole or from the line near

the well of Mansingbhai. He has further denied that the death of

Hiteshbhai occurred on account of any negligence or carelessness on his

part.

18.3.The deposition of the appellant, when read as a whole, discloses a

clear and consistent stand that the electricity for the marriage was

obtained from his own authorised connection and that he had no

knowledge of any unauthorised temporary arrangement. The fact that the

criminal court has already recorded a finding of innocence in his favour,

though not binding on this Court, nevertheless assumes relevance when

the civil liability is sought to be fastened solely on the basis of

assumptions drawn from the place of occurrence and the factum of the

marriage ceremony. In the absence of any direct ocular evidence or

contemporaneous document specifically naming the appellant as the

person who put the aluminium hook, the mere denial on oath by the

appellant coupled with his acquittal in the criminal proceedings cannot be

lightly brushed aside. The learned Civil Court appears to have discarded

Page 16 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

the entire deposition of the appellant without assigning any cogent reason

and has proceeded to fasten liability upon him on the basis of conjectures

rather than on the strength of positive evidence establishing his exclusive

involvement in the act of unauthorised drawing of electricity.

19.Admittedly, the deceased died due to electrocution on account of

the injuries sustained by coming into contact with a live high voltage wire

at the place owned and possessed by the appellant herein (original

defendant No.1). The deceased appears to have come into contact with

the live high voltage wire hooked with the main line and succumbed to

the injuries.

20.The point for determination is whether, for the aforesaid act or

incident, who can be saddled with the responsibility.

21.As per the case of the original plaintiffs, the entire responsibility

for the incident has been saddled upon all the defendants contending that

it was due to the invitations and while honouring the invitations of the

appellant that the son of the original plaintiff attended the same where

this unfortunate incident is alleged to have taken place. Though as per the

averments so also the ocular evidence while adhering to the stance that

the incident has taken place due to the negligence rather the theft of

electricity caused by the appellant herein by hanging a hook over the high

voltage wire, however, it is also averred that even the electricity

company, Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (original defendants Nos.2

and 3), is negligent who have not taken care as to such incidents and

thereby the claim is sought against the defendants.

Page 17 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

22.Therefore, the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for

the appellant that simply because the incident in question has taken place

nearby the vicinity or the place owned and possessed by the appellant

cannot be a ground to fasten the liability of the appellant with regard to

the incident in question which remotely has no nexus with the appellant

herein.

23.While considering the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge

of the trial court, the learned counsel appearing for Dakshin Gujarat Vij

Company Ltd. has submitted that they have been rightly exonerated as

such there was no fault and negligence on the part of the officers

concerned of the Board more so there appears immense material to

connect the incident in question to the appellant as the appellant seems to

have made efforts to steal the electricity by illegal means which also

transpires from the panchnama and report prepared by the office bearers

of the Board on the next day and even the deposition of the original

plaintiff also supports the same and therefore submitted that in the

absence of any such indications involving the Dakshin Gujarat Vij

Company Ltd. with the questioned incident no such liability can be

fastened as concluded by the learned Judge of the Civil Court.

24.In view of the aforesaid, the original plaintiffs opposed the

submissions made on behalf of the appellant and supported the findings

with particular regard to the submissions of Dakshin Gujarat Vij

Company Ltd. That the deceased was serving with the Municipal

Corporation and also extending helping hands in agricultural work.

Page 18 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

However, the learned Judge of the trial court awarded a sum towards

compensation for loss of dependency holding that the income of the

deceased could not have been proved and therefore while considering the

notional income to the extent of Rs.2,000/- under the head of future

prospects it has been considered. It is submitted that even in the absence

of the proof the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed on

the basis of the minimum wages.

25.At this juncture, it would be apt to note the proposition laid down

in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha and

Others, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 799, arising out of Karnataka Power

Transmission, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Justice Sanjay

Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh), wherein the issue

with regard to the law of torts pertaining to cases falling under

electrocution has been considered, and the principles of liability have

been succinctly discussed therein, while bifurcating strict liability versus

absolute liability. In cases of electrocution involving electricity

transmission and distribution entities, the standard of liability applicable

to such Board is strict liability, as per the rule laid down in Rylands v.

Fletcher, and no such absolute liability can be saddled on the Board.

Thus, while considering the activities of the Board, which otherwise is

inherently dangerous and engaged in distributing electrical energy, the

same can be said to fall under the principle of strict liability, irrespective

of the absence of negligence or fault, subject to the recognised legal

exceptions which otherwise may attract Act of God, Act of Stranger,

default or negligence of the plaintiff, etc.

26.Though while considering the aforesaid submissions it is admitted

Page 19 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

that the claim as to the deceased was serving with the Municipal

Corporation has been raised before the learned Civil Court however

nothing sort of any material has been placed on record and therefore the

learned Judge seems to have rightly concluded while considering the

notional monthly income of Rs.2,000/-, after deducting Rs.500/- towards

personal expenses, and applying the multiplier of 15 and Rs.1,00,000/-

towards mental agony as prevailing at the relevant time as the incident

seems to have taken place in the year 2000. However, while assessing the

compensation in case of electrocution claims raised therein, the

provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the multiplier formula cannot

be strictly applied mutatis mutandis to determine the compensation.

However, in the absence of any prescribed calculation method under the

provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the compensation is to be

determined on the basis of the principle of just, fair and reasonable

compensation, based on proven income and the relevant facts placed for

consideration.

27.Thus, the way in which the incident has taken place as described

in the foregoing paragraph the deceased has come into contact with the

high voltage wire on account of which he succumbed to the injuries. The

reasoning assigned by the learned Judge solely rests on the assumptions

and presumptions that since the incident has taken place due to the events

organized by the appellant. However, even while perusing the deposition

of the original plaintiff as a material witness as well as other material

witnesses they all seem to be hearsay as such no one has come forward

rather to establish the factum of having witnessed the incident in

question.

Page 20 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

28.It is an undisputed fact that the death of the deceased occurred due

to electrocution but what is required to be considered is who can be

saddled with the negligence. Apparently, the learned Judge appears to

have stressed upon the deposition of the original plaintiff as well as the

report prepared by the officers of the Board on the next date. Even on

perusing the aforesaid reports nothing sort of any such material emerges

to pinch any nexus of the appellant or the involvement of the appellant by

putting a hook on the high voltage wire so as to divert the same for his

own benefits.

29.Thus, the questions which require to be determined is whether

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. was vigilant enough to establish the

fact of the involvement of the appellant herein simply by citing a report

without there being accusing any persons rather naming any persons

including the appellant cannot be made a sole ground to impose a liability

on the appellant and that too just to absolve from their own responsibility.

30.At this juncture it would be apt to discuss the applicability of the

principle of “strict liability”. As per this principle the liability can arise

even without a proof of negligence if the escape or the transmission of the

dangerous substance such as electricity causes the harm.

31.In this regard, it is apt to refer to the judgment of High Court of

Rajasthan in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Another

v. Varda and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 4392, the relevant

paragraphs of which read as under:

Page 21 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

“14.Apart from the above, it would be relevant here to discuss the

applicability of the principle of Strict Liability. As per this principle,

liability can arise even without proof of negligence if the escape or

transmission of a dangerous substance, such as electricity, causes harm.

14.1. In this regard, it is also relevant to refer to the following

observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Parvati Devi

v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (2000) 3 SCC 754 : 2000 SCC

(Cri) 771:

“2. The appellants moved the High Court of Delhi claiming

compensation as the husband of Appellant 1 died on account of

electrocution while walking on the road. That the death was on

account of electric shock is established in view of the CFSL report

from Calcutta. But as the appellants could not produce relevant

materials indicating the negligence of any particular officer of the

authority, the High Court refused to award compensation. It is

against this order, the present appeal has been filed. Once it is

established that the death occurred on account of electrocution while

walking on the road, necessarily the authorities concerned must be

held to be negligent, and therefore, in the case in hand, it would be

NDMC who would be responsible for the death in question. It is

found from the records that the appellant was serving as a

machineman in The Statesman and was aged 54 years on the date of

death, and the age of retirement is 60 years. Taking these factors into

consideration, we direct that the appellants, who are the legal heirs

of the deceased, be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs 1,00,000

and NDMC should pay the same within 3 months from today failing

which it will carry interest at the rate of 12 %. This should be in total

satisfaction of the compensation for the legal heirs of the deceased.”

(emphasis supplied)

Further, the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v.

Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 315, while interpreting

the principle of strict liability in a case where death was caused due to

electrocution, held as under:

“7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric

energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the

Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human

Page 22 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to

compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy.

So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is

potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have

the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such

energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the

road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on

the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed

mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that

the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the

managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing

necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell

on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically

have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous

commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such

mishaps.

8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person

undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to

human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury

suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or

carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The

basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very

nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in

law, as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on

account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of

negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided

by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which

could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when

the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such

consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the

defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have

avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.”

(emphasis supplied)

This Court finds that the above observations of the Supreme Court

with regard to the principle of strict liability are squarely applicable to

the facts of the present case where the death of deceased took place by

electrocution on account of a live electric wire lying on the ground, and

for this reason also, the appellants are responsible for the occurrence of

Page 23 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

the accidentcausing death of the deceased and Ganpat, and are

consequently, liable to pay just and fair compensation to the

respondents.”

32.While considering the proposition laid down in judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari

and others, (2002) 2 SCC 162, the paragraph No.14 of which reads as

under:

“14. The Privy Council has observed in Quebec Rly., Light, Heat and

Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry [1920 AC 662 : 89 LJPC 99 : 123 LT 1] that

the company supplying electricity is liable for the damage without proof

that they had been negligent. Even the defence that the cables were

disrupted on account of a violent wind and high-tension current found its

way through the low-tension cable into the premises of the respondents

was held to be not a justifiable defence. Thus, merely because the illegal

act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability

of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road.”

33.Since the learned Judge of the Civil Court has saddled the liability

on the appellant herein however as discussed in the foregoing paragraph

nothing sort of any such material has been placed on record. On the

contrary even the criminal prosecution initiated against the appellant

herein resulted in the acquittal of the appellant. More so, the liability

imposed on the appellant by the learned Civil Court solely rests on the

deposition of the original plaintiff who has not witnessed the incident in

question though the efforts also seem to have been made while pointing a

finger against the Board as to the sheer negligence on their part to

maintain the electricity line in its proper form. However, the learned

Judge while relying on the reports prepared by the officers of the Board

followed by the panchnama drawn and the recovery effected from the

Page 24 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

place of the incident nowhere the name of the appellant indicates nor the

involvement of the appellant emerges from even the said report and

therefore in the absence of specific and express report involving any

person the same cannot be implicated solely on the ground of

assumptions and presumptions.

34.We have also put a query to the learned counsel appearing for the

original defendant No.1 to show from the reports as well as the

panchnama drawn by the officers of the Board indicating the involvement

of the appellant. However, he was not in a position to point out anything

and therefore in view of the detailed discussion made in preceding

paragraph and considering the principle of strict liability Dakshin Gujarat

Vij Company Ltd. is duty bound and responsible for the occurrence in

question.

35.In context to the arguments dealt with by the learned Judge as

canvassed by the Board that it was not feasible rather possible for the

officers of the Board even to verify and inspect scrutinize examine with

regard to the temporary connection obtained by the appellant from the

stranger is no ground to exonerate the Board from their responsibility

even to take care and check in their routine duty. And therefore solely on

the aforesaid basis without considering the principles of strict liability the

exoneration of the Board from their responsibility for the occurrence in

question does warrant interference particularly when the said contention

does not seem to have been substantiated by any cogent material even the

reliance placed by the officers of the Board on their own reports and

panchnama speaks volume rather not implicating any strangers including

Page 25 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

the appellant herein and therefore by raising contentions without there

being any substance cannot be a ground to shift the liability of the Board

on the appellant herein.

36.Since the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was about

23-24 years and therefore calculating accordingly. Thus in view of the

aforesaid the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge requires to be

interfered with qua the responsibility saddled on the appellant and

therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed and Dakshin Gujarat Vij

Company Ltd. is hereby held responsible for the occurrence in question

and to pay and bear the just and fair compensation to the original

plaintiffs.

37.Thus, while applying the law and proportion laid down in the

aforesaid decided cases while equating the same to the facts of the case

on hand, admittedly the incident has happened at the nearby place of the

appellant. However, what is required to be considered and confined is the

part of the negligence and as discussed herein above while keeping the

principles of strict liability which squarely apply to the facts of the case

on hand as the death of the deceased took place by electrocution on

account of live high voltage wire lying idle and for this reason also

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. are responsible for the occurrence of

the accident causing the death of the deceased and therefore are

consequently liable to pay just and fair compensation to the original

plaintiffs.

38.Reverting back to the issue with regard to settling the

Page 26 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

responsibility of the Board, the quantum of the responsibility to supply

the electrical energy is statutorily conferred on the Board and, while

transmitting the energy, if it causes injury or death of a human being who

gets unknowingly trapped into it, the primary liability to compensate the

sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. The Board is not

expected to raise a defence that somebody committed mischief by

siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution

was from such diverted line. It is pertinent to note that it is the lookout of

the Electricity Board / managers / suppliers / representatives thereof

deployed for such purpose to prevent such pilferage by installing

necessary devices. Even otherwise, assuming that, as per the arguments

advanced by the Learned Advocate for the respondent-Board, such

measures were adopted, the appellant who unauthorisedly undertook an

activity involving hazardous and risky exposure to human life, because of

which the deceased came in contact and succumbed to the injuries by

electrocution, cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the Board be

exonerated from its responsibility.

39.However, under the law of torts, irrespective of any negligence or

carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board / managers of such

undertaking, the liability still rests on the shoulders of the Board, as the

basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of

such activities, which is described as “strict liability”, which differs from

the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault on its part.

40.Thus, while dealing with the reports and the panchnama prepared

by the officers, nowhere is negligence attributed to the appellant. Apart

Page 27 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

from the same, the responsibility stands on the shoulder of the Board.

Therefore, keeping in mind the aforesaid and while considering the facts

on record, the liability stands to be settled on the shoulders of the Board

instead of the appellant, as per the principles of strict liability, as well as

in the absence of any such cogent material so as to extend the same to the

appellant.

41.In context to the decision laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

H.S.E.B. and Others v. Ram Nath and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 793,

wherein it has been held that an electricity company carries on a business

which is inherently dangerous and that if a person comes into contact

with a high-tension wire he is bound to receive serious injury or die, and

therefore the company must ensure that no injury results from its

activities. The principle of strict liability so laid down, read with Sections

63 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 relating to safety of supply and

overhead lines, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The

investigation of the Board has not been proved in accordance with the law

of evidence. Though it is alleged that the incident took place at a private

premises from private wiring illegally used by the appellant, the Board

has miserably failed to prove the said facts so that the Board can be

exonerated, while saddling the liability on the shoulders of the appellant.

The Court below rightly noticed the incident but erred in holding the

appellant responsible, when the report was not proved and even

otherwise, the primary duty to prevent escape of a dangerous energy rests

on the Board.

42.Even considering the material placed for consideration by the

Page 28 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

Board, so also the inquiry and investigation carried by the Electricity

Company, nothing sort of any such cogent material seems to have been

placed on record to saddle the responsibility of the appellant. On the

contrary, the report solely rests on assumptions and presumptions and,

merely because the incident in question has taken place at the private

premises of the appellant and from private wiring alleged to have been

illegally used by the appellant, without there being any substance, is no

ground to hold the appellant responsible for the alleged incident.

43.Thus, the Board miserably failed to prove their stance so as to

relieve and get exempted from their responsibility in the alleged incident.

Thus, the substantial questions of law as proposed to be appreciated are

only referring to the aspects of appreciation of the evidence, which the

Trial Court have not rightly considered qua the incident while saddling

the responsibility on the appellant instead of on the Board, and thereby

appeared to have erred in holding the appellant responsible for the act, as

the report was not proved in accordance with the provisions of the law of

evidence.

44.The Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (original defendant No.2)

is directed to deposit the said amount before the Learned Civil Court,

Navsari, along with the interest accrued thereon, as awarded by the

judgment and decree dated 30.09.2006 passed by the Learned Civil

Court, Navsari in Special Civil Suit No.44 of 2002 (Old Special Civil

Suit No.282 of 2000), within a period of one month.

45.Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed and

Page 29 of 30

C/FA/2043/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026

consequently, it is directed that, as the decretal amount has been

deposited, the appellant shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount,

and the concerned Registry shall release the same in favour of the

appellant after due verification.

46.In view of the aforesaid directions, the Civil First Appeal

preferred by the appellant is hereby allowed, and is disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

47.Record and proceedings, if any, be remitted to the concerned

Court forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)

MVP

Page 30 of 30