Contributory Negligence in Electrocution Cases: P&H High Court Refuses Enhancement of Compensation Despite 100% Disability
Case Name: Master Sahil v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 30 March 2026
Citation: RSA-1525-2012
Bench: Justice Nidhi Gupta
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in electrocution cases, where the victim or family contributes to the risk such as constructing under high-tension wires without permission or failing to exercise due care principles of contributory negligence apply. In such cases, enhancement of compensation is not warranted.
Summary: The appellant, who suffered grievous electrocution injuries resulting in 100% permanent disability, sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court had initially awarded ₹20 lakhs, which was reduced to ₹10 lakhs by the Appellate Court.
The appellant contended that the reduction was unjustified given the extent of disability, multiple amputations, lifelong dependency, and continuous medical expenses. It was argued that different heads of compensation—pain and suffering, medical expenses, and future hardship—were wrongly merged.
The respondents, however, argued that the high-tension wire had been installed decades earlier and that construction under such wires was undertaken without mandatory permission under the Electricity Rules. It was further contended that the incident occurred while the minor was flying a kite near the wire, indicating lack of due care.
The Court found that statutory requirements under the Electricity Rules mandate prior permission before raising construction near high-voltage lines. The appellant’s family had failed to comply with these safety norms, thereby contributing to the risk.
The Court emphasised that liability in tort requires proof of negligence, and merely because electrocution occurred does not automatically fasten full liability on the electricity authorities. It also noted that citizens have a duty to act cautiously and cannot shift the entire burden to the State for avoidable risks.
Applying the principle of contributory negligence, the Court held that the reduced compensation was justified. It further observed that the Appellate Court had followed settled principles for quantifying compensation based on disability.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and upheld the reduction of compensation to ₹10 lakhs, holding that no ground for enhancement was made out in view of contributory negligence and settled principles of assessment.