Madras High Court
Union Of India vs Sumathi on 10 February, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
A.S.No.283 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 10.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.No.283 of 2022
and CMP.No.10372 of 2022
1. UNION OF INDIA
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Pondicherry, Goubert Avenue,
Pondicherry.
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
Thethampakkam Sub Division,
Electricity Department, Thethampakkam, Pondicherry.
3. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER
Thirukanur O and M,
Electricity Department,
Thirukanur, Pondicherry. ... Appellants
Versus
1.Sumathi
2.Ravi @ Narayanan
3.Velvizhi ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the
judgment and decree dated 18.03.2021 in O.S.No.45 of 2017 on the file of II
Additional District Court, Puducherry.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Sreedhar
Page 1 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.283 of 2022
Additional Government Pleader (Pondy)
For Respondents : Mr.V.Kamala Kumar for R1
No appearance for R2 and R3
JUDGMENT
Challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court directing the
appellant along with other private defendants to pay the compensation amount on
account of death of the plaintiff's minor son in electrocution, the present appeal is
filed.
2. Brief background of the case is as follows:
2.a. The plaintiff's minor son one Manikandan was studying 5th standard at
the relevant point of time. The plaintiff's house and the property belonging to the
first defendant are situated diagonally opposite on Manalipet Padai, Kamaraj
Nagar, Koonichempet. The first defendant started construction of residential house
in the month of July 2013. The 2nd defendant who is a close relative of the 1st
defendant residing on the opposite row of the first defendant's house next to the
plaintiff's house was offering her help and service by way of providing electricity
service connection illegally to the 1st defendant's site. Notwithstanding the fact, the
electricity supply was extended illegally, the electrical junction box at the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendant's property was haphazardly and dangerously tied at a very low level to a
Poovarasan tree, situated abetting the road. On 10.10.2013 at about 4 pm, her
minor son, Manikandan who was playing on the street came into contact with the
live wires at the 1st defendant's construction site got electrocuted and died on the
spot. Hence, filed the suit claiming compensation.
2.b. The first defendant filed a written statement to the effect that first
defendant has not taken electricity from the second defendant, therefore, disputed
the claim. The second defendant taken a stand that they have not offered electricity
connection to the first defendant. The defendants 3 to 5 have filed written
statement to the effect that accident happened in the premises of the first defendant
and the electricity supply was extended illegally by the second defendant. The
Electricity Department has not provided service connection, permanently or
temporarily to the first defendant's premises during the period of the alleged
accident. The defendants 4 and 5 were and are regularly maintaining and
supervising all the electric wires belonging to the Electricity Department within the
region under their jurisdiction and are taking steps to curtail illegal tapping of
electricity. According to them, they are not responsible for the death of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Manikandan. Hence, disputed the liability to pay the compensation.
2.c. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following
issues:
1. Whether the 2nd defendant illegally extended the electricity service connection
for the 1st defendant site as alleged?
2. Whether the death of deceased Manikandan was due to the negligence of
defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit relief as prayed for?
4. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to ?
2.d. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.A1 to
A18 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW1 to DW4 were examined
and Ex.B1 to B5 were marked.
2.e. Based on the evidences and materials, the Trial Court found that the
defendants are liable to pay the compensation. The Trial Court has specifically
recorded the fact that the second respondent has committed theft of electricity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
connection which has not properly checked by the Government Department.
Challenging the findings, the defendants 3 to 5 have filed the appeal.
3. The only ground on which the appeal is urged before this Court by the
learned counsel for the appellants is that the Trial Court having found that
defendants 1 and 2 alone are responsible for committing theft of electricity,
directed the appellant to pay the compensation. Hence, seeks for allowing this
appeal.
4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the
Trial Court has analysed the fact that the authorities have not taken steps to prevent
theft or illegal taping of the connection which itself is nothing but clear case of
negligence. Hence, seeks for dismissal of this appeal.
5. In light of the above, now, the points arise for consideration are as
follows:
i) Whether the appellants being the supplier is not liable to pay the compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for the illegal tapping of the electricity by a stranger?
ii) Whether the respondent is entitled to pay compensation as ordered by the Trial
Court?
Points (i) and (ii)
6. The fact that the plaintiff's minor son died by electrocution on 10.10.2013
in the first respondent premises is not disputed. The Crime in FIR.No.59 of 2013
was registered in this regard. Electrocution is also admitted by both sides.
Postmortem certificate is also filed in Ex.A2. The evidence of parties clearly
indicate that while constructing the house by the first defendant, temporary
electricity connection has been illegally taken in the second defendant's house by
using junction box. The junction box is also kept on the tree, these facts have been
clearly admitted by the DW1. When junction box is kept on the tree, minor while
playing came into contact. Therefore, when a person is tapping electricity
connection illegally from the other connection without any permission, not
supervising such act is nothing but clear case of negligence.
7. The only contention of the Department is that since the entire act could be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
attributed only to the defendants 1 and 2, they are liable to pay the compensation.
In this regard, it is relevant to note that the company or government department
supplying electricity is liable for payment of compensation of acts in electrocution
even without any proof of negligence for the simple reason that exception to the
Rule of Strict Liability is not available to the Board which supplied electricity
unless it is established that the Board has taken all steps or precaution to prevent
such illegal tapping or the electricity. In the given case on hand, construction
activities have been carried away for many months for which electricity has been
illegally tapped from the second defendant's house without any permission and
junction box has been tied on the tree. Had the authorities visited the place and
taken steps to prevent such illegal tapping, electrocution would not have happened.
Therefore, any Board of Government Department engaged in hazardous or
dangerous activities and harm is caused to any person on account of such
operation, the rule of strict liability would come into play. Such Board of
Government Department cannot escape from its liability.
8. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and others reported in 2002
(2) SCC 162 has held that 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 relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads as
follows:
"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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
15. In W.B. SEB v. Sachin Banerjee [(1999) 9 SCC 21] the Electricity
Board adopted a defence that electric lines were illegally hooked for
pilferage purposes. This Court said that the Board cannot be held to
be negligent on the said fact situation but the question of strict
liability was not taken up in that case."
9. In view thereof, this appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
10.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking/non speaking order
dhk
To,
The II Additional District Judge,
II Additional District Court
Puducherry
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dhk
10.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
