# U.P. State Power Corporation Thru. Chairman v. Smt. Sabeena Begum & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 1119
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-18
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 570 of 2014
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-state-power-corporation-thru-chairman-v-smt-sabeena-begum-ors-54280
- **Pages:** 16

## Text

_Characters 0–39,984 of 53,470. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39984 for what follows._

3 All. U.P. State Power Coporation Thru. Chairman Vs. Smt. Sabeena Begum & Ors.
1119
58. From the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shashi Prakash
Khemka(supra), this Court in Nirbhay Kapoor(supra), High Court of Delhi in Suraj Prakash
Arora (supra) and Sas Hospitality P.Ltd (supra), Madras High Court in Valluvar Kuzhumam
Pvt.Ltd (supra) and Chiranjeevi Rathnam (supra), it is apparent that in accordance with Section 430
of the Companies Act, 2013 where the adjudication of the dispute between the parties was
exclusively in the domain of NCLT, the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief in that
matter.It is apparent that the dispute as to whether the defendant was entitled to recover the loan
advanced by it to the plaintiff prematurely or whether any default was committed by the plaintiff in
repaying the loan, could only have been decided by the NCLT, in a proceeding instituted under
Section 45 QA of the RBI Act by the defendant. It is further apparent that no other Court, except
the NCLT, had the jurisdiction to deal with this matter and further, no court can grant injunction in
this matter, except the NCLT. It is further apparent that the plaintiff has not approached the court
with clean hands and has suppressed material facts, which also disentitles him from getting the
discretionary relief of injunction from the court.

59. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial court has not committed any illegality in allowing
the defendants application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by impugned order dated 01.3.2025 and
rejecting the plaint. The appeal is meritless and is liable to be dismissed.

 60. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed with costs throughout. Consequently,
the impugned order of the trial court dated 01.3.2025 is hereby affirmed.

61. Learned counsel for the respondent informs that the company petition filed by the
defendant respondent CP no.190/ALD/2020 under Section 45 QA of the RBI Act has been
disposed by the NCLT, Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj on 16.1.2026 because of the stay order passed
by this Court while entertaining this appeal on 8.4.2025, with the liberty to revive the petition after
the decision of this appeal. It is made clear that the interim order granted earlier by this Court,
which was patently erroneous, has already been vacated on 24.2.2026.

62. Office is directed to send back the trial court record.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 1119
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 570 of 2014

U.P. State Power Corporation Thru. Chairman ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sabeena Begum & Ors. ....Respondents

Issues for Consideration
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
i) Whether Tasleem Ahmad died due to electrocution from a live 11,000 volt high-tension electricity line of the
defendant which had snapped and fallen in the field?
(ii) Whether in a claim arising out of death caused by electrocution from a high-tension electricity line, the
claimants are required to establish negligence of the Electricity Corporation or whether the principle of strict
liability applies?
(iii) Whether the trial court was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the defendant for nonproduction of records relating to patrolling, maintenance, repair and disruption of electricity supply?
(iv) Whether the compensation awarded by the trial court was excessive and liable to be reduced in appeal?
(v) Whether the departmental office memorandum providing for payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs.20,000/-
barred the claimants from seeking higher compensation through a civil suit?

Headnotes
Electricity-Electrocution-Death due to contact with snapped high-tension electricity wireProof of accident-Autopsy report-Order passed under Public Liability Insurance Act-Liability of
Electricity Corporation.

HELD: The plaintiffs successfully established that Tasleem Ahmad died on 04.10.2003 due to electrocution
when he came into contact with a live 11,000 volt high-tension electricity wire lying in an agricultural field.
The autopsy report proved electrical burn injuries on both legs and recorded the cause of death as shock due
to electric burn. The medical evidence categorically ruled out any other cause of death. The order passed by
the Collector under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, after inquiry and consideration of police records,
also recorded a finding that the deceased died due to electrocution from a broken high-tension electricity line.
The said order having remained unchallenged by the defendant, further corroborated the plaintiffs' case.
[Paras 39, 40, 42 and 43]

Electricity-Electrocution-Compensation-Principle of strict liability-Necessity of proving
negligence-High-tension electricity line.

HELD: In cases where death or injury is caused by electrocution from a high-tension electricity line, the
principle of strict liability governs the field. The claimants are not required to prove negligence on the part of
the Electricity Board, Power Corporation or its employees. Once it is established that death occurred due to
electrocution from the electricity infrastructure maintained by the defendant, liability to compensate follows.
Proof of negligence is unnecessary in view of the doctrine of strict liability applicable to inherently hazardous
activities involving transmission and supply of electricity. [Paras 32 to 38]

Evidence-Adverse inference-Non-production of maintenance and patrolling records by
Electricity Corporation-Effect.

HELD: The defendant's witnesses admitted that records relating to patrolling of electricity lines, maintenance,
rectification of faults and disruption of electricity supply were maintained by the department. Despite such
records constituting the best evidence on the issue whether the line was defective or broken, the same were
not produced. In these circumstances, the trial court rightly drew an adverse inference against the defendant.
Absence of such records deprived the defendant of substantiating its plea that no fault or snapping of the line
had occurred. [Paras 41 and 42]

Public
Liability
Insurance
Act,
1991-Compensation
awarded
by
Collector-Effect
of
unchallenged order.

HELD: The Collector, after considering oral evidence, police inquiry report and post-mortem evidence,
recorded a finding that the deceased died due to electrocution from a broken 11,000 volt electricity line and
awarded compensation under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. Since the defendant did not challenge
the said order before any forum, the findings recorded therein attained finality and constituted strong
corroborative evidence supporting the plaintiffs' case. [Paras 42 and 43]
3 All. U.P. State Power Coporation Thru. Chairman Vs. Smt. Sabeena Begum & Ors.
1121
Compensation-Death by electrocution-Ex-gratia scheme of Electricity Corporation-Civil claim
for compensation-Maintainability.

HELD: The office memorandum issued by the defendant providing for payment of an ex-gratia amount of
Rs.20,000/- in cases of death due to electrocution does not bar institution of a civil suit seeking compensation.
The defendant failed to point out any statutory provision or binding precedent restricting compensation only
to the ex-gratia amount. Consequently, the trial court was justified in awarding compensation beyond the
amount prescribed in the departmental scheme. [Paras 44 and 45]

Damages-Death
by
electrocution-Assessment
of
compensation-Professional
driverCompensation determined on basis of lower income than proved-Appeal by tortfeasor seeking
reduction.

HELD: The evidence on record, including the driving licence and testimony of the employer, established that
the deceased was a qualified professional truck driver. Nevertheless, the trial court assessed compensation by
treating him as a labourer earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The compensation awarded was therefore not
excessive. On the contrary, the claimants were not awarded compensation towards future prospects,
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. In an appeal filed solely by the defendant, the compensation
could not be reduced. [Paras 46 to 51]

Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree affirmed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Parvati Devi and Others v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 754 - relied
on; M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162 - relied on; Smt. Sunita Tiwari v.
State of U.P. and Others, Neutral Citation No. 2010:AHC:83628 - relied on.; U.P. State Electricity
Board v. District Magistrate, Dehradun, 1997 UPLBEC (2) 1344 - relied on; Yashpal Singh
(Minor) v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Electricity) and Others, 2017 SCC OnLine All
1246 - relied on; Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Sohani Jat and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine
Raj 2265 - relied on; PGVCL and Another v. Devsinhbhai Arjanbhai Hadiya and Another, 2025
SCC OnLine Guj 4823 - relied on; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017)
16 SCC 680 - referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; Electricity Act, 2003.

List of Keywords
Electrocution; High-tension electricity line; Death by electrocution; Strict liability; Electricity Corporation;
Snapped electric wire; Adverse inference; Ex-gratia compensation; Professional driver; Dependency; Fatal
accident compensation; Hazardous substance; Compensation assessment; Electrical burn injuries.

Case Arising From
Judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Pilibhit in Original
Suit No.232 of 2006, Smt. Sabeena Begum and Others v. U.P. State Power Corporation.

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Shivam Yadav.
For the Respondents: Sri Chandra Prakash Pandey, Sri Mohitosh Singh and Sri Vinay Kumar.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the U.P. State Power Corporation under Section 96 of
the C.P.C. against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 passed by the Additional
District Judge, Court No.1, Pilibhit in Original Suit No.232 of 2006 (Smt. Sabeena Begum and
others vs. U.P. State Power Corporation), whereby for the untimely death of Tasleem Ahmad due
to electrocution from a high tension electric line on 04.10.2003, when he was going to attend the
call of nature at about 9:00 a.m. in the morning, a compensation of Rs.6,23,000/- along with
pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 5% per annum has been awarded to the plaintiffs,
which has been ordered to be paid by the defendant-appellant U.P. State Power Corporation .

Plaint Case

2. The factual matrix is that on 04.10.2003, at around 9:00 a.m., Tasleem Ahmad (deceased)
husband of plaintiff Smt. Sabeena Begum was going to attend the call of nature as usual, then he
came into contact with a live 11,000 volt high-tension electric wire that had snapped and fallen in a
field. As a result, both his legs were severely burnt, and he died instantaneously. The plaintiffs
averred that neither Tasleem nor other villagers were aware that a broken high-tension electric wire
was lying in the fields of Jamaluddin and Anokhey Lal in village Banskheda, Tehsil and District
Pilibhit.

3. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the above-mentioned electric wire snapped due
to the negligence in its maintenance by the defendant-appellant. The autopsy of Tasleem's body
was conducted on 05.10.2003, after which he was cremated. At the time of his death, the deceased
was about 28 years old, who was a professional truck driver holding a valid licence for driving
heavy vehicles, and was earning approximately Rs. 6,000/- per month. The plaintiffs, being the
wife, minor children, and parents of the deceased, were entirely dependent on him for their
livelihood. The plaintiffs alleged that due to the negligence and carelessness of the officers and
servants of the defendant, the alleged accident occurred and accordingly when no compensation
was paid to them by the defendant, they filed the instant suit claiming the following reliefs:-

 (i) That a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the
recovery of a sum of Rs.6.5 lacs with interest thereon pendente-lite and future at the rate of 24%
per annum.

 (ii) That the plaintiffs be awarded the costs of the suit against the defendant.

 Written Statement of the defendant

4. The defendant filed its written statement before the trial court, in which, the plaint
averments were denied. It was specifically denied in the written statement, the fact that the
deceased was a truck driver, who was possessing a valid driving licence on the date of the accident
and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It was denied that there was any negligence on the part of
the defendant or his servants in maintaining the electricity high-tension line. It was further averred
that no complaint whatsoever regarding the broken high-tension line was made to the officers of the
defendant. It was further averred that the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the suit. It
was further averred that the accident was never brought to the notice of the defendant and the
3 All. U.P. State Power Coporation Thru. Chairman Vs. Smt. Sabeena Begum & Ors.
1123
defendant always maintained the high-tension electricity line properly and if the electricity line was
broken, then automatically the flow of electricity stops, as such, no question of any accident arises.
It was further averred that the deceased died due to some other accident and a fraudulent claim was
concocted by the plaintiffs, which was liable to be dismissed. It was further averred that on the
basis of office memorandum no.2060 dated 20.07.1996 of the defendant, only a maximum amount
of Rs.20,000/- is payable as ex-gratia on the death of any person due to electrocution by the
defendant.

Issues Framed

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

 (i). Whether on 04.10.2003 at about 9:00 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Village
Banskheda, Police Station Amariya, District Pilibhit in the field of Jamaluddin and Anokhey Lal,
the father of plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 and, husband of plaintiff no.1 and son of plaintiff nos. 5 and 6,
Tasleem died due to electrocution from 11000 voltage electricity line?

 (ii). Whether the above accident occurred due to the negligence of the defendant-U.P.
State Power Corporation?

 (iii). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any compensation? If yes, then how much?

 (iv). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maximum ex-gratia amount of only Rs.20,000/-
from the defendant, even if their case is proved?

Documentary Evidence of the parties

6. The plaintiffs have filed the carbon copy of the autopsy report of the deceased Tasleem
dated 05.10.2003 (Ex-1), certified copy of the order dated 06.10.2004 passed by the Collector
Pilibhit in Case No.02/2003-04 Sabeena Begum and others vs. U.P. Power Corporation under
Public Liability Insurance Act (Ex-2), the certified copy of the written statement of the defendant
dated 16.02.2004 (Ex-3) filed before the Collector Pilibhit in the above case and the original
driving licence of the deceased Tasleem.

7. The defendant has filed its office memorandum no.1780 dated 19.04.2006 whereby the
ex-gratia payment in the case of death by electrocution has been enhanced to Rs.50,000/- from
Rs.20,000/- w.e.f. 11.04.2006.

Oral Evidence of the parties

8. The wife of the deceased Smt. Sabeena, was examined as PW-1; Nazeer Ahmad,
Sabeena's father, was examined as PW-2; Dr. Bhagwan Das was examined as PW-3; Saeed
Ahmad, the employer of the deceased, was examined as PW-4; whereas, Jamirulhasan, the
1124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
patrolman of the defendant, was examined as DW-1, and M.A. Khan, retired Junior Engineer of the
defendant, was examined as DW-2.

9. Smt. Sabeena PW-1 deposed in her examination-in-chief that the deceased Tasleem was
her husband and the plaintiffs are her children, father-in-law and mother-in-law. She also deposed
that her husband was a truck driver, who died due to electrocution in Village Banskheda, who was
getting monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- out of which, she used to get Rs.5,000/- per month for
household expenses. She also deposed that whenever her husband went on long route, he used to
get extra amount. She further deposed that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were dependent on
the income of the deceased. She further deposed that the accident occurred on 04.10.2003 at about
9 AM, when her husband was going to attend the call of nature, then on the way, in the field of
Anokhey Lal and Jamaluddin in Village Banskheda, in which paddy crop was standing, a hightension electricity wire was lying on the ground, which was not visible in the tall grass and standing
paddy crop, on which accidentally her husband's foot fell, who died instantaneously. The wire was
having a live current. Both the legs of her husband got burnt. The electric wire was of 11,000 volts,
which was lying and was having current because of the negligence of the electricity department.
She was not aware, whether her family members gave information to the police station regarding
the accident or not, but she disclosed that some villagers went to the police station to get the
electricity supply stopped. She further disclosed that the autopsy of her husband was conducted on
05.10.2003 and no compensation regarding the accident was paid to her by the Electricity Board.
She further stated that she also filed a case before the Collector, Pilibhit, claiming compensation,
but has not received any compensation to date. She further deposed that after the death of her
husband, her life has become miserable, and the expenses of herself and her children are being
borne by her father. Her elder brother-in-law, Salim, gave information of the accident at the police
station. She proved the driving licence of her husband as well as the newspaper, in which the news
of accident was published.

10. PW-1 in cross-examination again reiterated that her husband used to drive trucks, who
was possessing a valid driving license. She admitted that since she was illiterate, she cannot tell the
name of transport owner, on which her husband was employed. She further disclosed that the field
of Jamaluddin and Anokhey Lal was at a distance of about 100 paces from her house. She admitted
that at the time of the accident, she was at her house and she came to know about the accident from
other persons. She denied the suggestion that her husband was not a driver, who was not earning
Rs.6,000/- per month.

11. Nazir Ahmad PW-2, who is the father of PW-1 Smt. Sabeena Begum, deposed that
Tasleem was a truck driver, who was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month, and this fact was told to
him by Tasleem and his daughter Sabeena.

12. In the cross-examination, this witness could not tell, the transport company in which
Tasleem(deceased) was employed.

13. Dr. Bhagwan Das, Surgeon, District Hospital, Pilibhit PW-3 deposed in examinationin-chief that on 05.10.2003 at 1:00 PM, he conducted the autopsy of deceased Tasleem, in which
the following ante-mortem injury was found:-
3 All. U.P. State Power Coporation Thru. Chairman Vs. Smt. Sabeena Begum & Ors.
1125
 "Electrical burn injury present both side legs. Both foot are absent. Right leg injury
burnt 23cm below to right knee. Left leg injury burnt 15cm below to left knee. Burn area is
blackish, dry, charred, burnt bones muscles are exposed with tissue. No other injuries.

 Cause of death ? shock due to electric burn"

14. He further deposed that the burnt part was black, dry and charred, bones and muscles
were visible. Besides this, there was no other injury. In his opinion, the deceased could have died a
day prior to the autopsy due to electrocution and shock due to the burn injuries. This witness has
proved the autopsy report of the deceased as Ex-1. He further deposed that the deceased could have
died on 04.10.2003 at about 9 AM due to heavy electric shock.

15. In cross-examination, PW-3 specifically denied that the injuries found on the dead body
could have occurred due to any other reason. He denied the suggestion that Tasleem did not die due
to electrocution.

16. Saeed Ahmad was examined as PW-4, who deposed that Tasleem was a qualified
heavy goods vehicle driver, who was possessing a valid driving license, who used to drive his
truck, who was being paid monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.200/- per day towards diet
allowance, who died due to electrocution on 04.10.2003. He deposed that he possessed two trucks,
URW-530 and UP-25-7043, and his wife Smt. Raees Bano is the owner of truck no.URW-530.
This witness filed the photocopy of the registration certificate of both the trucks and his PAN card.

17. In cross-examination, PW-4 deposed that he used to pay the salary to Tasleem in cash.
He could not produce the salary receipt. He denied the suggestion that Tasleem was not employed
as a driver by him. He further deposed that he was not a relative of the plaintiffs.

18. Jamirulhasan DW-1 deposed in examination-in-chief that he was a patrolman working
at Amariya sub-station, Pilibhit, his job was to conduct patrolling of electricity line and to repair it.
He admitted that Village Banskheda fell in his jurisdiction. He further deposed that on 04.10.2003
or previously, no information was received about any broken electricity line in village Banskheda
by him or any person of his department. He deposed that the electricity line of Village Banskheda
was working properly, no information of broken wire prior to or after the accident, was received.
He further deposed that if the alleged accident occurred in any other manner, except due to broken
electricity line, then the defendant was not liable for it.

19. DW-1 in cross-examination deposed that he was not aware whether on 04.10.2003 any
information regarding broken electricity line was made on his sub-station regarding the electricity
line of Village Banskheda. He admitted that whenever an accident occurs due to electrocution, a
report is prepared, inquiry is conducted. He feigned ignorance about the compensation claim
regarding the accident made by the plaintiff Sabeena before the District Magistrate. He admitted
that the electricity line, which was passing over Village Banskheda was of 11,000 volts. He
deposed that on 05.10.2003 at 10:30 a.m., he did not cut the jumper of this line. He feigned
ignorance whether Kalyan cut the line or not. He deposed that he inspected and did not found the
electricity line broken between 03.10.2003 till the end of October month. He could not tell on
1126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which date he went to Village Banskheda for inspecting the electricity line. He admitted that a
movement register was maintained in which the date of patrolling and the fault found is recorded,
but he failed to produce it before the Court. He denied the suggestion that an information was given
at the sub-station about the faulty electricity line on 04.10.2003 and acting on this information on
05.10.2003, he disconnected the jumper of electricity line.

20. M.A. Khan, Retired Junior Engineer was examined as DW-2, who deposed that he was
employed as a Junior Engineer at Amariya sub-station from 1998 till his retirement on 31.03.2010
and Village Banskheda was within his jurisdiction. He deposed that no such alleged accident
occurred in Village Banskheda on 04.10.2003, due to snapping of electricity line. He deposed that
the electricity line of village always remained in perfect order. He deposed that the electricity line
was regularly patrolled and if any complaint was received, then it was attended on priority and the
fault was rectified. He deposed that he has never received any complaint regarding the faulty or
broken electricity line, prior to or after the accident, and if for any other reason, except snapping of
wire, any accident has occurred, then the defendant was not liable for it. He further deposed that a
supply logbook and movement register was maintained, but in the year 2008 and 2009, a severe
flood occurred in which all the above record got destroyed because the sub-station remained
submerged in water for about 15 days. He further deposed that if the accident was proved then the
plaintiffs are only entitled to maximum compensation of Rs.20,000/- in accordance with
departmental letter no.1760 dated 19.04.2005.

21. In cross-examination, DW-2 deposed that no inquiry has been conducted from him by
the Electrical Inspector or S.S.O. He admitted that the record of the sub-station dated 04.10.2003
was not available because it has been destroyed in the severe flood. He admitted that on
4/5.10.2003, his duty was for 24 hours at the sub-station. He admitted that Jameel DW-1 was
working as patrolman at that time. He also admitted that no record of patrolling, repairing of
electricity line and shutting supply was available with the defendant. He denied the suggestion that
any information was given to the S.S.O. Office on 04.10.2003 regarding the broken electricity line,
and acting on such information, the electricity supply of feeder line was stopped at 10:30 a.m. He
further denied the suggestion that on 05.10.2003, Jameel disconnected the jumper.

Reasoning of the Trial Court

22. The trial court considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and concluded
that Tasleem Ahmad died due to electrocution on 04.10.2003 at about 9 AM, which was proved
from the evidence of his wife Smt. Sabeena PW-1 and Dr. Bhagwan Das PW-3, who conducted the
autopsy of the deceased. The trial court further concluded that an application was moved by the
plaintiffs for obtaining compensation under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 by filing Case
No. 2/2003-04 before the Collector, Pilibhit, which was decided on 06.10.2004, whereby an
amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded to the plaintiffs towards compensation for the unfortunate
death of Tasleem due to electrocution. The trial court also concluded that the defendant failed to
produce the relevant documentary evidence, which recorded when the electricity line was patrolled,
when the fault was repaired, when the electricity supply was disrupted, as such, the best evidence,
which was in the possession of the defendant was not produced before the court.
3 All. U.P. State Power Coporation Thru. Chairman Vs. Smt. Sabeena Begum & Ors.
1127
23. In view of this, an adverse inference was drawn against the defendant. The trial court
noted that the relevant record has been destroyed in severe flood and considering the above
evidence, the trial court concluded that the deceased indeed died due to electrocution. The trial
court also considered the submission of the defendant that the plaintiffs were at the most entitled to
get ex-gratia amount of Rs.20,000/-, but the trial court concluded that ex-gratia was awarded
through an office memorandum, which was not binding on the court and the plaintiffs were entitled
to claim compensation by filing a suit. The trial court also concluded that no notice was mandatory
to be given under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 because previously, the plaintiffs filed a
suit for compensation before the Collector, Pilibhit, which was allowed. The trial court failed to
correctly appreciate the original driving license of the deceased, which was available on record.
The trial court failed to see that the driving license was valid for driving heavy goods vehicle
(transport), from 20.11.2002 till 19.11.2005, as such, the deceased was possessing a valid driving
license for driving truck, but the trial court has held otherwise. This finding of the trial court has
not been challenged by the plaintiffs by filing either cross appeal or cross objection, as such, it
cannot be altered, but the fact remains that the deceased was possessing a valid driving license for
driving truck. The trial court considered that even if it is assumed that the deceased was a labourer,
his monthly wages were Rs.4,500/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards self expenses has
assessed the dependency of plaintiffs at Rs.3,000/- per month, and after applying a multiplier of 18,
has awarded a compensation of 3000X12X18=Rs.6,48,000/- alongwith pendente-lite and future
interest @5% per annum, till it is paid by the defendant out of which, the amount of Rs.25,000/-
awarded by the Collector, Pilibhit has been adjusted, which has been challenged by the defendant
by filing the instant appeal.

Submissions of the learned counsel of the parties

24. Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that under
the office memorandum of 1996, which was issued by the defendant, a maximum ex-gratia amount
of Rs.20,000/- was payable to the plaintiffs regarding the unfortunate death of Tasleem due to
electrocution, as such, the trial court could not have awarded an amount of Rs.6,23,000/- along
with interest @5% per annum towards compensation to the plaintiffs. It was further submitted that
the plaintiffs failed to prove that the deceased died due to electrocution and they further failed to
prove that any broken high-tension electricity line was lying in the agricultural field, as such, the
trial court could not have assumed that there was any negligence on the part of the defendant in
maintaining the high-tension electricity line and further, the trial court erred in awarding any
compensation by assuming that defendant was negligent in maintaining the above electricity line.

25. It was further submitted that the deceased was not a truck driver, which was rightly
concluded by the trial court because the plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence in
support thereof.

26. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no documentary evidence to presume
that the deceased was earning monthly wages at the rate of Rs.4,500/-, as such, no compensation on
this basis could have been determined by the trial court.
1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27. With these submissions, it was prayed that the trial court has awarded excessive
amount of compensation to the plaintiffs, which warrants reduction from this Court, in exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction.

28. Per-contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that the plaintiffs
duly proved that high-tension electricity line of the defendant was lying broken in the agricultural
field, which was due to the negligence of the defendant and the deceased came in contact with the
above high-tension line when he was going to attend the call of nature. It was further submitted that
from the autopsy report of the deceased, which was proved by PW-3, it was proved beyond doubt
that the deceased died due to electrocution and PW-3 specifically deposed that the deceased could
not have died due to any other reason.

29. In view of this, the trial court has not erred in concluding that the deceased died due to
electrocution injuries. It was further submitted that the trial court failed to duly appreciate the
original driving license of the deceased on record, which disclosed that it was valid for driving
heavy transport vehicles, but the trial court has only considered it valid for driving light motor
vehicle, which is an erroneous finding. It was further submitted that the trial court has not erred in
determining the compensation on the basis of minimum wages payable to a labourer at the time of
the accident. It was further submitted that the compensation in this case was required to be
determined in the manner, it is determined in motor accident cases and the plaintiffs were also
entitled to compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, which has not
been awarded by the trial court. It was further submitted that the trial court has not awarded any
compensation towards the future prospects of the deceased, but learned counsel admitted that the
plaintiffs have not filed any appeal or cross objection claiming enhanced compensation, as such,
that part of the order of the trial court cannot be challenged by them.

30. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and be dismissed.

31. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides and perused the record of the trial
court.

Conclusion of this Court

32. 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
3 All. U.P. State Power Coporation Thru. Chairman Vs. Smt. Sabeena Begum & Ors.
1129
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)

33. 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. 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 lookout 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 case 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 he 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)

34. This Court in the case of Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs. State of UP and others Neutral
Citation No.2010:AHC:83628, while interpreting electricity as ?hazardous substance? irrespective
of its proportion under the Public Liability Insurance Act,1991, where rule of strict liability is
applicable, held as under:-
1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "This Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board vs. District Magistrate, Dehradun,
1997 UPLBEC (2) 1344, has already considered the issue that electricity falls within the definition
of "hazardous substance" and the accident, caused on account of it, is covered under the provisions
of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. Relevant extract of the judgment, as contained in
paragraphs 42 to 44, is being quoted below:

 "42. Hence in my opinion 'hazardous substance' as defined in Section 2 (d) of the 1991
Act is not to be confined to a substance specified in the notification issued by the Central
Government, but it includes all substances which come under the definition of 'hazardous
substance' under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, with this exception that if any such
substance is also notified by the Central Government under Section 2 (d) of the 1991 Act then it
will be a 'hazardous substance' only if it exceeds the quantity specified in the said notification. Thus
the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 2 (d) of the 1991 Act can only
narrow down the scope of 'hazardous substance' as defined under the Environment (Protection Act,
1986, but substances which are not specified in the said notification will nevertheless be regarded
as 'hazardous substances' under the 1991 Act if they come within the definition of 'hazardous
substances' under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

43. I have already stated above that electricity is "hazardous substance" as defined under
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and hence I reject the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioners that it is not a hazardous substance since it has not been included in the
Notification dated 24-3-1992.

44. THE principle of strict Liability Section 3 (2) of the 1991 Act places a strict liability
(liability without fault) in cases of such accident due to 'hazardous substances' and it is not
necessary for the claimant to plead that the death or injury was caused by wrong or negligent act
of any person?.."

 35. This Court in the case of Yashpal Singh (Minor) vs. State of UP Thru. Princ.
Secy.(Electricity) and 5 Others 2017 SCC OnLine ALL 1246, where death was caused due to
contact with a live wire on account of the negligence and laxity of the functionaries of the
Electricity Department, who failed to maintain the supply lines and take necessary precautions,
held as follows:

 "27. The electricity authorities are duty bound to observe precautions/safeguards under
the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Failure of such
statutory functions/duties tantamounting to negligence cannot be overcome by alleged statutory
obligations on the part of the consumer of the electricity.