M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD versus SHAIL KUMARI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 164 · Decided: 12-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD 
v. 
SHAIL KUMAR! AND ORS. 
JANUARY 12, 2002 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Torts: 
Victim electrocuted by a live wire lying on road-Claim for 
C Compensation by dependents of the victim-Electricity Board contending 
that the wire fell down due to illegal tapping by a stranger and hence 
liability is on the stranger-Rule of Strict Liability-Exception to the rule 
being an 'Act of a stranger-Availability of-Held, the act of the stranger 
should have been reasonably anticipated or its consequences should have 
D been provented by the Electricity Board-Hence, the exception is not available 
and therefore the Electricity Board is liable to pay compensation. 
One J, a workman, while returning from his factory on a bicycle in the 
night, came into contract with a live wire, which snapped and fell down on the 
road due to rain. He was instantaneously electrocuted. Respondents-claimants, 
E who are dependents of the victim, filed a suit for compensation before trial 
court claiming Rs. 6.9. lakhs against appellant-Electricity Board. The 
appellant contended that the wire fell down on the road due to the illegal 
pilferage of electricity committed by respondent 3 from the main supply line 
and hence respondent 3 is liable to pay damages to the claimants. The trial 
F 
G 
court agreed with the contention of the appellant and assessed the 
compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 4.34 lakhs. However, the 
claimants were non-suited by the trial court on the ground that the claimants 
failed to prove the onus of liability. The High Court allowed the appeal of the 
claimants and directed the appellant to pay the compensation amount of 
Rs. 
4.34 lakhs to the claimants. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. I. The responsibility to supply electric energy in the 
particular locality was statutorily conferred on the appellant-Electricity Board. 
If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who 
H gets unknowingly trapped into it, the primary liability to compensate the 
164 
-
• 
M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD v. SHAIL KUMAR! 
165 
sufferer is that of the appellant. So long as the voltage of electricity A 
transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension, the 
appellant 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 ofsuch road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the 
appellant that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his B 
private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is 
the look out of the appellant 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. (167-G-H; 168-A-B] 
C 
1.2. A person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky 
exposure to human life is liable under the law of Torts to compensate for the 
injury caused irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on his part in 
causing the same. 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 D 
in law as 'strict liability'. In cases of strict liability, the defendant is held 
liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by 
taking precautions. One of the exceptions formulated to the rule of strict 
liability in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, is the 'Act of a stranger'. The said 
exception is not available to the appellant as the act attributed to the third E 
respondent should reasonably have been anticipated or at any rate its 
consequences should have been prevented by the appellant. Merely because 
the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the 
liability of the appellant regarding the live wire lying on the road. 
[168-C; 169-D-E; 170-B] 
Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) Law Reports 3 HL 330; North Western 
Utilities ltd. v. london Guarantee & Accident Company ltd., (1936) Appeal 
Cases 108 and Quebec Railway, Light Heat and Power Campany limited v. 
Vandry & Ors., (1920) Law Reports Appeal Cases 662, relied on. 
F 
W.B. State Electricity Board v. Sachin Banerjee, (1999] 9 sec 21,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.