# Pappu v. U.P. State Electricity Board

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 2057
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-15
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 713 of 2021
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pappu-v-u-p-state-electricity-board-54488
- **Pages:** 25

## Text

_Characters 0–39,940 of 83,973. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39940 for what follows._

4 All. Pappu Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board
2057
(2026) 4 ILRA 2057
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 713 of 2021

Pappu ...Appellant
Versus
U.P. State Electricity Board ...Respondent

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether in a suit claiming compensation for electrocution from a high-voltage transformer, the plaintiff is
required to prove negligence on the part of the Electricity Board or whether the principle of strict liability
governs the claim?
(ii) Whether the plea of contributory negligence could be raised against a seven-year-old child who sustained
permanent disability after coming into contact with an unfenced transformer installed adjacent to a primary
school?
(iii) Whether the suit was barred for want of notice under Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910?
(iv) Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit for compensation and, if not, what would be
the just and reasonable compensation payable to the plaintiff?

Headnotes
Electricity-Electrocution-High-voltage transformer-Compensation-Strict liability-Negligence
not required to be proved.

HELD: In cases where death or bodily injury results from electrocution caused by high-tension electrical
infrastructure belonging to the Electricity Board, the rule of strict liability governs the claim. The claimant is
only required to establish that the injury was caused by electrocution from the defendant's electrical
installation. Proof of negligence is unnecessary. The liability arises because transmission and distribution of
high-voltage electricity constitute an inherently hazardous activity imposing a non-delegable duty upon the
supplier to ensure public safety. [Paras 43 to 49]

Electricity-Transformer installed adjacent to primary school-Transformer not protected by
fencing or barricading-Failure of Electricity Board to adduce evidence regarding compliance
with safety regulations-Adverse inference.

HELD: The plaintiff consistently pleaded and proved that the 11 KV transformer had been installed barely
three feet from the primary school building without fencing, barricading or protective enclosure. Although the
Electricity Board pleaded that the transformer had been installed in accordance with applicable rules, it neither
produced the relevant regulations nor examined any official to establish compliance therewith. In the absence
of any documentary or oral evidence from the defendant, an adverse inference under Section 114 illustration
(g) of the Evidence Act was liable to be drawn that the defence was false. [Paras 50 to 56]

Evidence-Adverse inference-Party withholding evidence-Failure to enter witness box.

HELD: Where the Electricity Board neither examined any responsible officer nor produced evidence to
substantiate its pleaded defence, despite the burden resting upon it to prove compliance with statutory safety
2058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
requirements, the Court was justified in drawing an adverse presumption against the defendant under Section
114(g) of the Evidence Act. [Paras 53 to 55]

Electricity-Electrocution-Child aged seven years-Contributory negligence-Plea not available.

HELD: The plaintiff was merely seven years old when he accidentally came into contact with the unfenced
transformer while playing outside the primary school. A child of such tender age cannot reasonably be
expected to appreciate the danger posed by a high-voltage transformer. The plea that the accident occurred
due to the plaintiff's own negligence was therefore untenable. In the absence of evidence that the transformer
was fenced or otherwise secured, no contributory negligence could be attributed to the child. [Paras 57 to 63]

Indian Electricity Act, 1910-S. 33-Notice of accident-Nature of provision-Suit for
compensation.

HELD: Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 merely requires notice of an accident to be given to the
Electrical Inspector and other prescribed authorities. The provision does not create any statutory bar to the
institution of a civil suit for compensation in the event of non-compliance. The Trial Court therefore erred in
holding that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 33. [Paras 64 and 65]

Civil Suit-Compensation-Electrocution-Erroneous appreciation of evidence by Trial Court.

HELD: The Trial Court committed manifest errors in holding that the accident resulted from the plaintiff's own
negligence, in treating delay in lodging the FIR as material despite the accident being admitted by the
defendant, and in rejecting documentary evidence on hyper technical grounds. Such findings were contrary to
the pleadings, evidence and settled principles governing electrocution cases and rendered the dismissal of the
suit legally unsustainable. [Para 66]

Compensation-Permanent
disability-Amputation
of
both
upper
limbs-Assessment
of
damages-Principles.

HELD: Compensation in electrocution cases involving permanent disability is to be determined on principles
analogous to those governing motor accident claims. Assessment must take into account loss of future
earning capacity, functional disability, future prospects, attendant charges, medical expenses, future medical
treatment, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and other consequential losses.
[Paras 67 to 79]

Permanent disability-Amputation of both upper limbs-Functional disability-Assessment.

HELD: Since both upper limbs of the plaintiff had been amputated, he had suffered 100% functional disability
rendering him incapable of earning his livelihood and wholly dependent upon others throughout his life.
Compensation was therefore required to be computed on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled workman
with addition towards future prospects and by applying the appropriate multiplier. [Paras 69 to 79]

Compensation-Award.

HELD: The plaintiff was held entitled to compensation of Rs.26,65,000/-, after deducting Rs.1,25,000/-
already received, together with pendente lite and future interest at 6% per annum from the date of institution
of the indigent proceedings. Directions were also issued for investment of the decretal amount in a fixed
deposit for the benefit of the permanently disabled plaintiff, with liberty to seek withdrawal for medical
treatment and other special circumstances. [Paras 79 to 82]

Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the Trial Court set aside. Suit decreed. (E-14)
4 All. Pappu Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board
2059
Case Law Cited
M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162 - relied on; M.P. Electricity Board v.
Shiv Narayan, (2005) 7 SCC 283 - relied on; M. Radhey Shyam Lal v. M. Prahlad Rai, AIR 1970
SC 1017 - relied on.; Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 573 - relied on; Iswar
Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 457 - relied
on; M.S. Grewal and Another v. Deep Chand Sood and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 151 - relied on;
Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330 - relied on; Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and Others v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 9 - relied on; M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 - relied on; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 -
relied on; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 - relied on;
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 413 - relied on; Master Ayush v. Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2022) 7 SCC 738 - relied on; Pappu Deo Yadav v.
Naresh Kumar and Others, (2020) 14 SCC 150 - relied on; Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 9 SCC 442 - relied on; Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Tukaram
Maruti Chandane, (2023) 1 SCC 693 - relied on; Baby Sakshi Grewal v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481 - relied on; Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 222 - relied on; Anshu v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6936 -
referred to; Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (PGVCL) v. Ratilal Maganbhai Patel, 2024 SCC
OnLine Guj 4698 - referred to; Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Rukmani Devi, S.B. Civil First
Appeal No. 188 of 2018 (Rajasthan High Court, decided on 09.09.2024) - referred to; Yashpal
Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, First Appeal No. 81 of 2022 (Uttarakhand High Court, decided on
22.11.2024) - referred to; Sunita Tiwari v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co.
Ltd., Misc. Appeal No. 5948 of 2024 (Madhya Pradesh High Court, decided on 20.01.2025) -
referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes/Books
Indian Electricity Act, 1910; Electricity Act, 2003; Electricity Rules, 1956; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.

List of Keywords
Electrocution; High-voltage transformer; Strict liability; Absolute liability; Electricity Board; Compensation;
Permanent disability; Child victim; Functional disability; Contributory negligence; Adverse inference; Safety
measures; Unfenced transformer; Future prospects; Loss of amenities; Medical expenses; Artificial limbs.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the District Judge, Firozabad in Misc. Probate Petition No. 2
of 2023, Amit Gupta and Another v. Smt. Kalpana Gupta and Others

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Rishabh Agarwal.
For the Respondents: Sri Abhishek Agarwal and Sri Arvind Agrawal.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 CPC against the
impugned judgment and decree dated 29.10.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge Court
No. 7 Agra in O.S. no.171 of 2003 Pappu vs. Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board, whereby the plaintiff
's suit seeking compensation for the injuries sustained due to electrocution from the transformer of
the defendant on 01.3.1997 has been dismissed on the ground that the incident occurred due to the
plaintiffs' own negligence. Appeal is admitted.
2060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Plaint case

2. The plaintiff- appellant Pappu filed O.S.no 171 of 2003 through his guardian and next
friend his father Hari Singh, against defendant U.P. State Electricity Board with the averments that
he was an innocent, simple but intelligent, healthy, energetic and handsome child aged about 7
years, studying in 2nd class in Kapil Dev Shastri, Jr.High School, Nangla Padi,Agra. The defendant
is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the electricity laws, the basic object of whom
is to generate, transmit and supply electricity by installing the electric line, transformers and other
instruments.

3. It was further averred that the defendant placed a transformer of 11,000/400 Volts 100 KVA
capacity on the open land near the gate of the building of Primary School,Nangla Padi,Agra, which
was managed by Nagar Nigam, Agra. It was further averred that the distance between the steps of
the school building and the place where the above transformer was installed was not more than 3
feet, the transformer was placed in open without any fencing, barricading or any other means to
protect it. It was further averred that under law such transformer must be efficiently protected by
fencing not less than 1.8 m in height or other means so as to prevent access to the electric line and
apparatus therein. It was further averred that the officials of the defendant never erected any such
protection around the transformer as was required by law.

4. It was further averred that the residents of the locality several times requested the officials
of the defendant to protect such transformer as per law by fencing or otherwise so that any
untoward accident may not be caused but no heed was paid to it.

5. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on 01.3.1997 at about 5 PM when he was playing
with other children near the above school building, then he had an accidental contact with the 11
KV side of the transformer, which was unprotected and unsecure, there was a heavy flash and both
his hands and arms were badly burnt due to electrocution. Some neighbours on seeing the incident
rushed to the spot and removed the plaintiff from the said transformer and got him admitted to S.N.
Medical College Hospital, Agra, where a major operation was done on 14.3.1997 in which both the
hands and arms of the plaintiff were amputated. He was again operated on 28.4.1997 and 7.5.1997.
It was further averred that the plaintiff remained in the hospital from 01.3.1997 to 19.3.1997 and
again from 03.4.1997 to 12.5.1997 and he was still in the treatment of Dr.Rahul Sahai. It was
further averred that an FIR regarding the accident was lodged at police station New Agra, District
Agra.

6. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the said accident was caused by the serious and
unimaginary negligence committed by the officials of the defendant. It was further averred that the
plaintiff has lost both his hands, as such his life has become miserable since he is totally dependent
on others, he cannot take food, cannot wear his clothes, cannot wash or brush his teeth and cannot
perform his daily morning rituals. He cannot play with toys, he can only watch them helplessly. It
was further averred that the plaintiff is not in a position to earn his livelihood throughout his life,
his father was also an ailing person, who was unemployed.
4 All. Pappu Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board
2061

7. The plaintiff claimed compensation for loss of earning @ ₹ 4,000/-per month up to the age
of 70 years amounting to ₹ 30.24 lakhs, salary of one attendant for 24 hours a day @ ₹ 3,000/- per
month amounting to ₹ 22.68 lakhs, expenses incurred in treatment of ₹ 50,000/-, compensation for
mental torture, agony to him and his family amounting to ₹ 5 lakhs, loss of earning of his mother
and brother amounting to ₹ 5,000/-. In this way, the plaintiff claimed compensation of ₹ 58.47
lakhs for the injuries suffered by him due to electrocution from the transformer of the defendant,
which was still lying open, unprotected and unsecured after the accident.

8. The plaintiff initially sought permission to file the suit as an indigent person by filing
miscellaneous application on 30.5.1997, which was allowed by the trial court on 21.2.2003 with the
finding that plaintiff was only 10 years old, whose both hands are amputated, whose father has
died, whose mother is a labourer and the plaintiff has 3 other siblings.During the pendency of the
indigent proceedings the plaintiffs father Hari Singh died on 23.5.1998, and the mother of the
plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi became the guardian and next friend of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the suit
was registered as O.S.no.171 of 2003.

9. In the above backdrop, the plaintiff has claimed with following reliefs:-

(A)That a decree of ₹ 58.47 lakhs along with interest @ 2% per month future and
pendentelite from the date of accident till the date of realisation be decreed in favour of the plaintiff
against the defendant.

(B)That the cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.

(C)That any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the
circumstances of the case be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

Written Statement of the defendant

10. The defendant in his written statement evasively denied the plaint averments. It was
averred that the transformer was installed as per rule and regulation of the Board. It was
specifically denied that the officials of the defendant never made any such protection as required
under law. It was also specifically denied that the residents of the locality ever requested the
defendant to protect the transformer. It was admitted that an incident took place on 1.3.1997 due to
the own negligence of the plaintiff in which the plaintiff was electrocuted. It was averred that there
was no negligence on the part of the defendant in the alleged accident, which occurred due to the
own negligence and fault of the plaintiff as such, the defendant cannot be blamed for the laches on
plaintiffs part and the defendant was not liable to pay any damages as claimed by the plaintiff. It
was also averred that the plaintiffs claim was highly inflated, excessive and unreasonable, the
plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the suit against the defendant.

11. It was further averred that plaintiff filed complaint no.9484/24/97-98 before the National
Human Rights Commission, New Delhi who vide its order dated 20.5.1999 directed the defendant
to pay ₹ 1 lakh in addition to a sum of ₹ 20,000/- and ₹ 5,000/- already paid to the plaintiff and in
compliance of the above order, the defendant paid ₹ 1 lakh on 4.7.2000, on which the plaintiff was
getting monthly interest. It was further averred that the defendant as a matter of courtesy and on
2062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
humanitarian ground has paid an amount of ₹ 1.25 lakhs to the plaintiff as a consolation
compensation which has been acknowledged by him.

12. It was further averred that the plaintiff had knowledge of the existing danger and he could
have reasonably avoided such danger or the alleged negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff was
under legal duty to take care of his own safety which he did not and consequently, he was the
author of his own wrong, who was injured by his own carelessness, who had voluntarily undertaken
the risk for own negligence of not taking precaution against the known risk and the defendant was
not liable for the alleged incident and consequently, was under no legal obligation to pay the
alleged compensation to the plaintiff. The suit was barred by Section 33 of the Indian Electricity
Act. The suit was misconceived and liable to be dismissed with costs.

Documentary evidence of the plaintiff

13. Original discharge slip issued by S.N. Medical College Hospital, Agra; injury report of
plaintiff dated 01.3.1997; certificate issued by the Ortho Surgeon, District Hospital Agra dated
11.9.1997; copy of application given by the plaintiffs father to police station New Agra, Agra on
14.3.1997 and 5.5.1997, copy of application dated 12.3.1997 written by Nathan Singh Kushwah
PW-3 to Executive Engineer Electricity Department, Agra; prescriptions of Jaidevi Nursing Centre,
Agra and cashmemos of medicines purchased by the plaintiff.

14. The plaintiff was examined by Dr. A.K. Singh at the Emergency Department of S.N.
Medical College and Hospital, Agra on 01.3.1997 at 7:15 PM, where the following injuries were
found on his body :-

''Superficial to deep burn over right upper extremity, some part of left arm upper onethird and left forearm with hand, some part of left big toe, burn.....KUO. Patient admitted. Police
informed.''

Opinion:-injury caused by electric burn KUO, duration fresh."

15. According to the discharge slip filed by the plaintiff he remained admitted in S.N. Medical
College and Hospital, Agra from 01.3.1997 till 19.3.1997 and again from 03.4.1997 till 12.5.1997
for surgical treatment under Dr.Rahul Sahai, the summary of which reads as under:-

''Patient was admitted as a case of electric burn, amputation was done of both upper
limbs, the right upper limb was amputated above elbow, while the left upper limb was amputated
below the elbow. There was no post operation complications. Patient discharged with advice of
medical treatment."

16. The plaintiff has also filed the certificate issued by Dr.A.K.Ambesh,Ortho Surgeon,
District Hospital Agra dated 11.9.1997 according to which the plaintiff is permanently disabled due
to below shoulder amputation of both upper extremity.

17. No documentary and oral evidence was adduced by the defendant.
4 All. Pappu Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board
2063
Issues framed by the trial court

18. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial
court:-

(i)Whether the accident occurred on 1.3.1997 due to fault of the electricity department
since the transformer was kept open, as a result of which the plaintiff sustained injuries ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any compensation from the department ?

(iii)Whether the suit is barred by Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act ?

Oral evidence of the plaintiff

19. The plaintiff examined his mother Smt. Shanti Devi as PW-1, Omprakash as PW-2 and
Nathan Singh Kushwaha as PW-3.

20. Smt. Shanti Devi PW-1 deposed in her examination-in-chief that the plaintiff is her son
who was residing with her. Defendant had established the transformer of 11,000/400 Volts and 100
KVA capacity in open place near the gate of Primary School, Nangla Padi,Agra which was
managed by Nagar Nigam. There was hardly a distance of 3 feet between the transformer and the
school building and the transformer was installed in an open place, without any fencing and
barricading in order to to save people. The employees of the defendant never took any steps for the
safety of transformer. The local residents complained many times to the employees of the
defendant for erecting fencing around the transformer so that the life of the people was not
endangered but malafidely they did not pay any heed.

21. She further deposed that on 01.3.1997 at about 5 PM the plaintiff along with other children
of the above primary school, were playing near the school building, then while playing the plaintiff
came in contact of the above transformer, which was kept on the ground without any fencing. As
soon as the plaintiff came in contact with the transformer, a flash was generated in which both
hands of the plaintiff were badly burnt due to electrocution, some neighbours rushed to the spot
who removed the plaintiff from the transformer and got admitted him to S.N.Medical College. She
further deposed that a FIR was registered regarding the accident at police station New Agra, Agra
by plaintiffs father Hari Singh.

22. She further deposed that since both the hands of the plaintiff were badly burnt, the doctors
in order to save his life, amputated them in an operation on 14.3.1997. Since some other medical
problems remained, the plaintiff was again operated in the above Hospital on 28.4.1997 and 7.5
1997, for which the plaintiff remained admitted in the above Hospital from 1.3.1997 to 19.3.1997
and 3.4.1997 to 12.5.1997, and thereafter, the plaintiff was under treatment of Dr.Rahul Sahai.

23. She further deposed that the above accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the
defendant and its employees. Without both hands, the life of the plaintiff has become miserable,
who cannot - eat, wear clothes, perform daily rituals, play with toys. The plaintiff requires the
assistance of an attendant throughout his life. The plaintiff belongs to a poor family, whose father
has died due to poverty and illness. Since both hands of the plaintiff have been amputated, he is not
2064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in a condition to earn his livelihood. She has demanded a compensation of ₹ 58.47 lakhs under
different heads. She further deposed that even after the accident, the transformer is still lying in the
open.

24. PW-1 in cross-examination deposed that the school in which the plaintiff studied was at a
distance of about one kilometre from her house. She admitted that the information of the accident
was given to her by neighbouring children. She disclosed that the accident occurred from the
transformer which was kept on the road outside the school. She further disclosed that on getting
information, she straightaway went to the emergency of the S.N. Medical College where the
plaintiff was admitted. She further deposed that the plaintiff remained admitted in the above
Hospital for about 4 months during which his both hands were amputated.

25. She further deposed that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was studying in class II of
Kapil Dev school, after the accident the studies of plaintiff abruptly ended, who thereafter,
remained at the house. She admitted that she has seen the place of accident, where the transformer
was kept in open, on the ground, which was not surrounded by any fencing, which was at the same
place since 2 years prior to the accident, and regarding this, the local residents had complained
even prior to the accident.

26. She denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of her son.
She disclosed that her 3 other sons were elder than the plaintiff who were doing private job and
marriage of one son has been solemnised. She admitted that she had earlier complained to the
Human Rights Commission which granted ₹ 1 lakh compensation which has been deposited by the
defendant in plaintiffs name, on which he is earning monthly interest of ₹ 700/-. She also admitted
that besides the above amount, the defendant has also paid ₹ 25,000/-.

27. Omprakash PW-2 deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was the eyewitness of the
accident that occurred on 1.3.1997, since he used to iron the clothes near the school on a cart. He
deposed that the defendant had installed a 11,000/400 Volts,100 KVA transformer in open near the
Primary School, Nangla Padi, Agra which was managed by the Nagar Nigam. There was hardly a
distance of 3 feet between the transformer and the school building, the transformer was kept in
open, without any fencing and barricading to save people from coming in contact with it. The local
residents also complained many times to the employees of the defendant for erecting fencing
around the transformer but no heed was paid.

28. He further deposed that on 01.3.1997 at about 5 PM when plaintiff was playing with other
children near the above school building then while playing, he came in contact with the above
transformer, which was kept on the ground without any fencing, from which electricity lines were
going, due to which an electric flash was generated, and due to the flow of electricity, both hands of
the plaintiff were badly burnt. He and other nearby people rushed to the spot and pulled the
plaintiff from the collar of his shirt, removed him from the transformer, who was taken by his
parents to the emergency department of the S.N. Medical College. The badly burnt hands of the
plaintiff were amputated by doctors by operation on 19.3.1997. The accident occurred due to the
negligence of the employees of the defendant. The life of the plaintiff without hands has become
miserable. The plaintiff and his family are very poor, who have got no means of livelihood.
4 All. Pappu Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board
2065

29. PW-2 in cross-examination deposed that his cart on which he used to iron clothes, was at a
distance of about 10 - 15 paces from the transformer. He knew the plaintiff prior to the accident.
The accident occurred at about 5 PM, the transformer was at a distance of about 3 - 4 feet from the
school of Nagarpalika, which used to close in the evening. After the accident, nearby people
gathered at the site of accident. He disclosed that the children were playing near the transformer,
which was on the road, and a 11 KV line was coming from above to the transformer. He also
deposed that no sooner the plaintiff touched the transformer, he got electrocuted and his hands were
badly burnt. He also disclosed that a complaint was made by municipal member Nathan Singh. He
denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of the accident and was giving false
testimony due to acquaintance with the plaintiff. He further denied the suggestion that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff, for which the employees of the defendant cannot be
faulted.

30. Nathan Singh Kushwaha PW-3 deposed in his examination-in-chief that the defendant had
installed 11,000/400 Volts,100 KVA transformer in open near the gate of Primary School, Nangla
Padi, Agra managed by Nagar Nigam, Agra, which was hardly at a distance of 3 feet from the
school building. The transformer was in the open, which was not surrounded by any fencing and
barricading, in order to save people from coming in contact with it.

31. He further deposed that in the year 1997 he was the member of the Nagar Nigam from
Nangla Padi and he himself and the local residents complained many times to the officials of the
defendant for fencing the above transformer, so that the lives of the common people may not be
endangered, but negligently the employees of the defendant failed to pay any heed on his
application. He further deposed that on getting information of the accident on 1.3.1997 at 6 PM,
being the neighbour and municipal member he went to the S.N.Medical College to see the admitted
plaintiff, where he saw his badly burnt hands, and nearby, parents and family members of the
plaintiff were present who were very distraught. He also deposed that a FIR was also registered
with the police regarding the accident, the application of which was scribed by him. He also
deposed that in a major operation on 19.3.1997 both hands of the plaintiff were amputated and the
accident occurred due to the loss negligence of the defendant and its employees. He further
deposed that the plaintiff and his family members were very poor who had no means of livelihood.

32. PW-3 deposed in cross-examination that he was a teacher, whose house was at a distance
of about 200 metres from the site of accident. He admitted that he was not present at the time of
accident, who came to know about the accident at about 6 PM, when he returned to his house. He
reiterated that the distance of the transformer from the boundary of Nagar Nigam's school was
about 3 feet. He disclosed that there was no shop on both sides of the transformer, which was in the
open place, which was kept on a foundation of bricks, which had been cemented, nearby poles were
installed, but there was no fencing. He disclosed that the transformer was installed one - one and
half years prior to the accident. He disclosed that on the 14th he got the FIR registered, the
application of which was written by him. He also disclosed that as per his knowledge prior to this
accident, no such accident occurred. He denied the suggestion that previously he had not
complained to the officials of the defendant. He also denied the suggestion that since he was
friendly with the plaintiff, was giving false testimony. He also denied the suggestion that as per the
rules of the defendant, the transformer was correctly installed.
2066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Reasoning of the trial court

33. The trial court recorded the following reasons in the impugned judgment:-

(i)Smt. Shanti Devi PW-1 was not an eyewitness of the accident.

(ii)Plaintiff has not examined himself as a witness in the court.

(iii)From the evidence of eyewitness PW-2 Omprakash it was proved that the plaintiff has
himself negligently touched the transformer, in which there was no negligence of the defendant.

(iv)Nathan Singh PW-3 is not an eyewitness but he has admitted that the transformer was
installed on a foundation of bricks which was cemented, which proved the statement of PW-1
wrong, that transformer was installed on the ground.

(v)The plaintiff has filed photo copy of the documents, which were not proved in
accordance with law,hence were inadmissible in evidence.

(vi)The plaintiff has not given any notice under Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act,
1910.

(vii)The defendant has already paid an amount of ₹ 1 lakh to the plaintiff on account of
complaint made to the Human Rights Commission. Besides this, the defendant has also paid an
amount of ₹ 25,000/- to the plaintiff.

(viii)The accident took place on 01.3.1997, but the application was given with delay at
the police station on 14.3.1997, but the explanation of delay was not given.

(ix)From the evidence on record it was not proved that the accident occurred due to the
negligence and fault of the defendant.

34. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove his
case, hence no relief could be granted to him and consequently, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed
with costs, aggrieved against which, the plaintiff sought leave of this Court to file this Appeal
under Section 96 CPC, as an indigent person, which was granted vide order dated 09.9.2021 and
consequently, the plaintiff was permitted by this Court, to file appeal as an indigent person.

Submissions of the learned counsel of the parties

35. Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant submitted that the plaintiff was only 7 years old
at the time of the accident, which occurred on 01.3.1997 at about 5 PM, who was studying in class
II , who was playing with other children outside the Primary School managed by Nagar Nigam,
Agra, when he accidentally came in contact with the 11,000/400 Volts, 100 KVA transformer of
the defendant, which was kept in open without being surrounded by any fencing and barricading,
which was necessary in order to prevent people from coming in contact with it.

36. Learned counsel further submitted that had the transformer surrounded by proper fencing
and barricading, the plaintiff would not have come in contact with it. It was further submitted that
the plaintiff was only 7 year old child at the time of accident as such, the plea of negligence cannot
be taken against him. It was further submitted that in cases of electrocution from high tension
electricity, the principle of negligence is inapplicable. In such cases, the principle of strict liability
applies and it was the bounden duty of the defendant to keep its transformer enclosed in a cage, so
as to prevent passers by from coming in contact with it.
4 All. Pappu Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board
2067

37. It was further submitted that the defendant has admitted the accident and has also not
entered the witness box to deny the accident and offer himself for cross-examination by the
plaintiff. Further the defendant has not led any evidence to contradict the plaintiffs case. It was
further submitted that the defendant has not produced any rule or regulation to prove that it was not
required to take sufficient precaution for ensuring that people may not come in contact with the
transformer.

38. It was further submitted that the plaintiff has lost both his hands in the accident, which
occurred due to electrocution from the transformer of the defendant, which was kept negligently in
open place, without being surrounded by any cage, to prevent plaintiff and other people from
accidentally coming in contact with it, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the
injuries suffered by him in the accident.

39. It was further submitted that the plaintiff has lost both his hands in the accident, which is
proved from the oral and documentary evidence on record. The plaintiff is unable to earn his
livelihood and he is completely dependent on other persons for his survival, throughout his life.
The plaintiff requires one constant attendant to look after him. It was also submitted that in this
case the plaintiff is entitled to compensation on the basis that he was a skilled labour at the time of
the accident, for the loss of earning due to 100% permanent disability. He also submitted that the
plaintiff is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life, loss of marriage prospects, expenses incurred on medical treatment, expenses for
future medical treatment, compensation for pain and suffering, etc. With these submissions, it was
prayed that the appeal be allowed and reasonable compensation be awarded to the plaintiff.

40. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant respondent submitted that the transformer
was not kept on the ground but it was installed on a cemented platform, which was at a
considerable height, the plaintiff climbed the above platform, which was not permitted, thereafter,
the plaintiff touched the transformer, which was also not permitted. It was submitted that had the
plaintiff not climbed the platform on which the transformer was installed and further, not touched
the transformer, the accident would not have occurred. It was submitted that the accident occurred
only due to the sole negligence of the plaintiff, who touched the transformer. There was no
occasion for the plaintiff to touch the transformer. It was submitted that from the evidence of the
plaintiff it was proved that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the plaintiff as such,
the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit, which requires no interference from this Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is
meritless, which is liable to be rejected.

41. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and the
record of the trial court.

42. The following issues arise for determination by this Court:-

(i)Whether the plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant was negligent in installing
its transformer in the open, which was not surrounded by any fencing or barricading, in order to
prevent people from accidentally coming in contact with it ?
2068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii)Whether for the injuries suffered in the accident, the plaintiff is entitled to any
compensation from the defendant ? If yes , then how much ?

Case law applicable

43. The Apex Court in the case of Parvati Devi and Others vs. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi and others (2000) 3 SCC 754, held as under:-

"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)

44. The Apex Court in the case of MP Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari (2002) 2 SCC 162,
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 being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the
sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy.