<-• i- o' HiGH^QURTOFCHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilio Raosaheb Deshmukh. *1. FirstApoeal No.139 of2007 ChhatUsgarh State Electricity Board versus Smt. Teras Batand t^iere ORDER Postfor 2 -0&3008 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge HtGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR o o r^- Sinale Bench : Hon'bte Shri DiUp Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Appellant DefendantNo.3 Respondente Plaintiffs DefendantNo.1 DefendantNo.2 DefendantNo.4 First Anpeal No.139 of 2007 ChhatB^arti Stete Etectricify Board Through The ExecuUve Engineer, (OperaUon and Maintenance) Tifra, Bilaspur: (C.G.) Versus 1. Smt. Teras Ba», Wd/<^ late Shri Shhrkumar Dhruv, aged about30 year, 2. Anjna Kumar Dhruv, aged aboirt 15 year, 3. Savitn Kumar Dhnw, i®edabout 8 year, . 4. Ritesh Kumar E)hruv, aged about 2 year. Respondents No.2 to 4 through ttieir natural guardian ^4oUte^ Smt. Teras Bai Wd/o tate Shivlaimar Dhruv, all residents of ViUage Khamtarai, Pollce Stafion Saritanda, Dlstrict Bilaspur(C.G.) 5. Samaru Lat Lasre"S/o Late RsmgnsSSti Lasre, aged about 48 year, resident <rf Vitlage Khamtarai, Poliee Staton Saritanda, Tahsil & District Bilaspur <C-G^ _ ; 6. Radheshyam Awastht S/o (at® Harprasad Awasthi, s^ed aboid 54 year, resident <rf WUage Khamtarai, Police Station Saricanda, Tahsil & DistrictBilaspur (C.G.) 7. Steto of Chhatt^arh Throigh The Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) Firet Aepeal under Section 96 <rf the Ctvil ProcedureGode. 1908. Present : Shri R. S. Pat6l, counsel forthe appellant. . ShriA. V. SridhaF,GOunselforrespondentNo.1. Shri Suresh Verma, counsel for responderrtNo.6. ORDER (Passedon 8^ davofMav. 2(M») ru~ ^^te. The appellant ChhatBsgarh State Elecbicity Board Ownceforth "ttie Board") is aggriwed by thejudgment datad 02-08-2007 p»sedby the Disbtet Judge, Bilaspur in Chril Suit No.02-BQ006 wheieby in a case <rf deathofa labourer-Shivkumar Ohruv on 15-08-20W due ta electrocution as a result of siphonlng of ttie elwtricity to his fiekl by clandestine pilferage eommitted by respondent No.5-Samaru Lal Lasr®,damages of Rs.1,75,000/- against the appellant/Board were swarded to-S>e respondente No.1 to 4 being ths widow and three minor chHdren of Uis deceased. (2) The only point urged by Shri R. S. Patel, teamed wunsel for ttie appellant/Board in this appeal is that thera is no awdenee on record to show that death of Shivkumar Dhniv occurred due te ary negligene* on the part of the Board in maintaining elechieity supply lines. tt was contended that asadmittadby Smt. Teras 8ai, ttie wctow of th&<toeeased, due to a heavy rainfall and storm oecurring a day prior to the incklwrt, the bamboos on which the <wo klloraeter long yi^al conneeUon taken by Samaru Lal Lasre was supported, had falten due to which the live wire of illegal conneeUon had becomeexposed.It was ttius solely due to the negligence of Samaru Lal Lasre that deatft <rf Shivkumarhad occuned. Sinee, no negligence on the part of ttie appellant/Board was fMFevad, ttie IlaMlify to pay compensation ought to have been fa^ened on respondwit No.S-Saroaru Lal Lasre aloneand not 6n the Board. Reliance was ptaced on SDO, Grid Corporadon of Orissa Ltd., and Otiiers vs. Timudu Oram, (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 186. (3) On the other hand, Shri A. V. Sridhar, learmed coimsel for respondent No.1 argued that liabilify to pay damages was prfmarity that <rf ^i the Board which vras solely responsible for taking maasures to prevent any such mishap due to theft of electrieity committed by Samaru Lat Lasre. Retianee was placed on M.P. Etecfricity Board versus Suncter Bai and Otters, 2007 (1) D.M.P. 61 (M.P.). (4) Having heard rival contenfions, 1 havepwused the fecoid. tn M.P. Elecfric'rty Board vereus ShaU Kumar and Others, A.I.R. 2002 Suprenne Gourt 551, the supplier of electricity in a tocalifystriving to squirm out of the liability to compensate the dependants of the sote vx6m of a snap elecfrocution had pleaded that eleeteocutlon was due to the clandestine pitferage committed by a sfranger unauthorisedfy sifrtioning the electr'ic energy from ttie supply line and hence ttie wreng doer alone should be mulcted with the burden of damages. tn a suit flled by the dependentsofthevicUm, thetrial Court agreedwittt theabtwecontenttons of the Board. In an appeal, High Court disagreed and direded the Boaid to pay the amount of damages assessed. In appeal, the Supreme Court hekl as under: "7. lt is an admitted fact that the responsibiJifytosupptyelectrte energy in the particular locality was ^atutcirily conferred on the Board. If ifae energy so bransmitted causes injury ordeath ofa human being, whogets unknowtngly tra^ed into if (slc) the primary liability to compensateihe suferer i&that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as tt»vottage of electriGity transmitted through the wires is potentially <rf dangerous dimenston the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prewnt escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped vwukl not remaln 1'ive on ttie rosd as users ofsueh road woukl be under peril. It is no ctefeBce on ttie part of Uiemanagement pfthe Board Uiat somebody clanmittetf mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such divertsd line. It is Ittelook out (sic)the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferageby installing nec^sary devtees. Atany rate, ffany live wire got snapped and fell on the publlc road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Aidtorifes manning such dangerous commodides haveextra dutytochaflc out measuissto preventsuch mishaps. ~ r „ B 9. The doctrine of ^rtrt liabUSy has "rts origin in English Common Law when it was pro(»undedin the celebrated case of Ryteocte v. Fteteher (1868 LSM RefX»ts (3) HL 330;, Btackbum J., ttie author of the said rule-had observed thus in the said decision: 'The rule of law is that ths person who, for his own purpose, brings on hjs land and collects arKi teeps there anytNng likely to do mischief ff it eseap^, must keep it at his peril, and if he dore so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the naturalconsequence of its escape." 10. There are seven excepUons formulated by means OC cSse law to the doctrine of sfrict liability. It ts unnecessaiy to enumerate those exceptions baning ona which is this. "ftxA of stranger i.e. iTthe escape was caused bythe untbreceable (ste) act of a stranger, ttie rule does not apply." 11. The rule of strict liability has beenapprwad anct ftrflowed jn many subsequent decisions in England. A recent decisfon in recogntton of the said doctrin®is rendered by the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastem CounUes Leather Plc. (1^4 (1) All Er^land Law Reports (HL) 53).-The said principle gained approval in India, and decision of the High Courts are a legjon to that effeCt. A Consttotjon Bench of ttiis Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990 (1) SCC 613) and a Dhrision Bench in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. .V. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhat (1987 (3) SCC 234) had followed w'rth approval the principle in Rytands v. Flsteher. By referring to the above two decisions atwo Jydge Bench ofthis Court has reiterated the same principte in Kaushnuma Begumv. New 'lndia Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001 (2) SCC 9). 12. In M.C-Mehta v. Union of Indfa (1987 (t) SCC 39^ this Court has gone eyen beyondthe rufe of sfrfct tiabtltty by hoMing that "where an enterprise Is angaged in a trazardous or inherently dangerous activityand harm is caused on anywie on account of the accident in the operatton of such activity. ttie enterprise is strictly and absolutely liabte to compensato those who are affected bythe accident, such liability is not aiyectfe> any <rf the exceptions to the principte of sfrict liability uncter the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher" f 13. In the present case, the Board made an endeavour to rely on the exception to the rute of sttict ItabitUy (Rytemds v. Fleteher) being "an act of stranger".^ The said exceptfon is not awitaMe to the Board as the act attributed to the timd r^pondent shoutd reasonabty have bean anticjpated or atany rate ite consequences shoukl have been prevented bythe appellant-Board. In North-westem UUIiBes, Ltd. v. London Guarantee and Accident Company, LU. (1936 Appal Cases 108), the Privy Council repetled the contention of the ctefendant based on the aforecited exceptton. In Uirt case a hotel ---tl"?;.',^: ^iS-^S,^^ ,/y^€\ ff 9 'Sffi belonging to <he ptaintifls was desfroyed in a fire caused by the escape and igniUon ofnatural gas. The gas had percolated into the hotel basement from a fractured weldad joint in an intermediate pressure main situated below the street level and belonging to the defendants which was a public utility company. The fractwe was caused during the construGtion involving underground work by a third party. The Privy Council held Biat the risk involved in the operation underteken by the defendant was so great that a high d^ree care was expected of himsince the defendant ought to have appreciatsd the possibility <rf such a leakage. -14. The Privy Council has observed in Quebee RaHway Llght Heat and Power.Company Ltd. v. Vandry and others (1920 Law Reports Appaal Cases 662) that the company supplyi^ etectricity is liable for Uie damage wthout proofthat they had been n^ligent. Even the defence that cables were disrupted . on account of a vtolent wind and high tension current found tts - way through the Ipw tension cable into ttie premises of the respondents was held to be not a justifiabte defence. Thus, merelybecause the illegal act could be attributed to astranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road." In the light of above discussion, the Supreme Court dismissed ttie appeal filed by the M.P. Electricity Board withput issuing noUee to ttie respondents. (5) TheabovementionedcaseofM.P.EIectoicityBoardversusShail Kumar and Others (Supra) applies with full foree to the present case. To make the sttuation worse for the Board, Anupam Sartar who appeared as a witness for th& Board admitted that the Board has recovered fte eleetric charges from Samaru Lal Lasre for the eleetricity clandestinely stphoned to him by hooking from ttie electric Hnes of the Board for a perted of three months. J. Chatterji, Assistant Engineer, N.A.W5 alsp stated thsrt responsibilify for inspecUon of the supply lines wasof the Linemah Bisahu Ram. Bisahu Ram, Lineman Inehaige for Village Khamtarai wssnot examined by the appellant/Board. Govind Ram Kaushik, NAW.3, Lineman admitted tt(at Bisahu Ram was not prwent on the spot, even though, he had knowledge about the incident. He furttter admitted that the ^^•^•^-s ffy st '^1 1^1 ;%^J/ ^ illegal connectton taken by Samam Lal Lasre is easily visibte from a tong dislance also. The very fact that the appellanyBoard tas recGvewd charges for etectricity consumed by Samaru Lal Lasre for three months would also go to show ftat ttie appeltant/Board and its emphqfees were in completeslumber regardtng theinspection of tte supply lines. This goes to show ttiat the appellanVBoard was wholty n^|ligent in regulariy making inspectton cf Vhe supply lines.-ln this mannar, negligence of the appellanyBcard in supervising the safety of and pitferagefrom the supply lines is clearly bome out. The case <rf SDO, Grid Cwporafionof Orissa Ltd., and Others vs. Timudu Oram (supra) cited by teamed counsd for the appellantfBoard is distinguishable sincea writ peBUon vias filed afteTa lapseof 10 yearsfor which no reasonswere given. It was further heldttiat subsequent suit for writ petitkm would not be malntainable In wew of the dismissal <rf the sutt. Such condffions do not exist in the present suit. In this view of the matter, the trial Court rightly fastened the liability on the appellant/Board to pay darnages. (6) tn the result, there is no merit in this appeal which is aceordingty dismissed atthestage of admission. r . sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh '" Judge Tunnne