Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Strict Liability of Electricity Authority in Electrocution Death; Dismisses Second Appeal Against Compensation Award
Case Name: Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and Others v. Priyanka and Others
Date of Judgment: 15 January 2026
Citation: RSA No.1752 of 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that electricity authorities are subject to strict and non-delegable liability for death caused due to electrocution arising from hazardous proximity of high-voltage transmission lines. The Court held that once death due to electrocution is established and breach of statutory safety duties is proved, absence of tripping or allegations of contributory negligence do not absolve the electricity supplier of liability. No substantial question of law was found to arise in the second appeal.
Summary: The second appeal was filed by Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and its officials challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed and compensation was awarded for the death of Sita Ram due to electrocution.
The deceased, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 to 4, was working as a TV cable operator. On 09.09.2012, while repairing cable connections on the rooftop of a residential house in village Govindpura, he suffered electrocution and died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by Jeewan, who also sustained an electric shock. Proceedings under Section 174 CrPC were conducted, and the post-mortem examination opined that death was caused due to cardiac arrest resulting from electric current.
The plaintiffs instituted a civil suit claiming compensation, asserting that a 132 KV high-voltage transmission line of the defendants was passing dangerously close to the rooftop and was in contact with a tree through which the cable wire passed, creating a lethal induction zone. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the premise that death could not have occurred due to a 132 KV line and that electrocution from domestic supply could not be ruled out.
In appeal, the First Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and reversed the Trial Court’s findings, holding that the death was attributable to electrocution from the high-voltage transmission line and that statutory duties cast upon the electricity authorities had been breached. Compensation was accordingly assessed and awarded.
Before the High Court, the appellants argued absence of direct contact with the transmission line, lack of tripping on the date of the incident, and contributory negligence on part of the deceased. Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that the Trial Court’s reasoning was conjectural and unsupported by medical or expert evidence. The High Court relied upon the testimony of the eye-witness, corroborating medical evidence, site plan, and post-mortem report to conclude that death occurred due to electric current induced from the high-voltage line.
The Court further held that electricity is an inherently dangerous commodity and that statutory duties under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Electricity Rules, 1956 impose a strict obligation upon the licensee to maintain safe clearances and remove hazardous obstructions. Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent on strict liability, the Court held that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of disproving liability. The plea of contributory negligence was also rejected. The quantum of compensation awarded by the First Appellate Court was found to be consistent with settled principles and free from perversity.
Decision: The second appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, awarding compensation to the dependents of the deceased were affirmed.