In a landmark decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld a compensation award of ₹10.37 lakh to the family of Smt. Pancho Bai Yadav, who died due to electrocution in her home in December 2017. The court dismissed an appeal by the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL), reinforcing the principles of strict liability for electricity providers.
The case stemmed from the tragic death of Smt. Pancho Bai, aged 35, in Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. On December 13, 2017, while bathing, she came into contact with electricity from a borewell pump, resulting in her electrocution. Her husband, Lala Ram Yadav, and their eight children, dependent on her income as a daily laborer, faced severe financial and emotional distress following the incident.
In 2016, the family filed a civil suit (No. 05B/2016) against CSPDCL, seeking ₹11 lakh in compensation, alleging negligence in maintaining electrical safety standards. The trial court ruled partly in their favor, awarding ₹10.37 lakh with 9% annual interest. CSPDCL challenged this ruling in the High Court, arguing that the death was due to the deceased’s own negligence.
Key Legal Issues
1. Negligence vs. Strict Liability: The appellants argued that the incident was caused by faulty internal wiring and dampness in the victim’s home, absolving them of responsibility. The court evaluated whether CSPDCL could still be held accountable under the doctrine of strict liability.
2. Adequacy of Compensation: CSPDCL claimed that the amount awarded by the trial court was excessive, particularly as the deceased’s income was not supported by documentary proof.
3. Extent of CSPDCL’s Responsibility: The court assessed whether CSPDCL had fulfilled its duty of care in ensuring proper installation and earthing of electrical systems.
Court’s Observations
The division bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal upheld the principles of strict liability, relying on established legal precedents such as M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Others (2002) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017).
– Strict Liability Doctrine: The court emphasized that entities engaged in inherently hazardous activities, like electricity distribution, are liable for harm caused regardless of negligence. The judgment quoted, “A person undertaking an activity involving hazardous exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury, irrespective of carelessness or negligence.”
– On CSPDCL’s Responsibility: CSPDCL’s Executive Engineer, during cross-examination, admitted that failure to ensure proper earthing at the time of meter installation constituted negligence on the company’s part. This admission undermined CSPDCL’s defense.
Compensation Deemed Just
The High Court agreed with the trial court’s assessment of ₹10.37 lakh as a fair compensation. The calculation was based on the deceased’s notional monthly income of ₹4,500, using a multiplier of 16, as per Supreme Court guidelines in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009). Additional amounts were awarded for mental agony, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.
The court also noted the absence of evidence supporting CSPDCL’s claim that the deceased or her family’s negligence contributed to the incident.
Final Decision
The appeal by CSPDCL was dismissed, and the company was directed to pay the compensation jointly and severally to the plaintiffs. The court observed that utility providers must maintain the highest standards of safety and care to prevent such tragedies.
Parties and Representation
– Appellants: CSPDCL, represented by Advocate Raja Sharma.
– Respondents: Lala Ram Yadav and his eight children, represented by Advocate B.L. Sahu.
– Respondent No. 1: State of Chhattisgarh, represented by Panel Lawyer Sachhidanand Yadav.
