Rajasthan HC Enhances Electrocution Compensation to Rs 1.62 Lakh, Dismisses RSEB Appeal on Negligence and Strict Liability
A rusted, fallen live wire in village Javtari killed two people in 1991; Rajasthan High Court dismisses the electricity board's appeal and raises the award from Rs 40,330 to Rs 1,62,272.
Justice Sandeep Taneja of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has dismissed a civil first appeal filed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its Assistant Engineer, Bhinder, Udaipur, challenging a 1995 trial court decree that held them liable for two deaths caused by electrocution in village Javtari, Tehsil Vallabh Nagar, District Udaipur. The court simultaneously allowed, in part, a cross-objection filed by the deceased's family seeking higher compensation. The total compensation payable under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1955, has been raised from Rs 40,330 to Rs 1,62,272, with the enhanced amount of Rs 1,21,942 to be deposited within two months. The judgment, reserved and pronounced on 30 June 2026, affirms negligence as well as strict liability against the Board, rejecting the “Act of God” defence anchored to an alleged midnight storm.
The Accident and the Suit Before the Trial Court
At around 4 AM on 9 April 1991, Punjki — a resident of village Javtari — stepped on a broken live electric wire lying on the ground while going to attend to nature's call. She was electrocuted and began shouting. Her neighbour Ganpat, also known as Ganga, rushed to help her and was also electrocuted. Both died.
The family filed a civil suit against the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its Assistant Engineer under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1955, before the Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur. The plaint alleged that the electrical line in Javtari was in a persistently poor condition, that the wire had broken due to rusting, and that the Board's employees neither cut off the power supply nor warned the public. The respondents claimed compensation of Rs 88,200 under various heads for the death of Punjki.
The Board denied negligence. It contended that maintenance was carried out before Diwali and before the rainy season each year, that a severe storm on the midnight of 8–9 April 1991 broke the wire, and that the power was cut off as soon as information reached the department in the morning. The Board also argued contributory negligence — that the deceased walked carelessly in darkness and stepped on the wire — and pleaded that the accident was an Act of God.
The trial court framed five issues, evaluated the evidence, and partly decreed the suit. It held the Board negligent, awarded Rs 40,330 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till recovery, but did not award the full amount claimed. Both sides were dissatisfied: the Board appealed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while the respondents filed a cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 seeking enhancement.
Whether the Storm Excuse Held Up Against the Evidence
The Board's appeal rested heavily on the storm defence. Its witnesses DW-1 (Kalipath), DW-3 (Bhanwar Singh, the lineman), and DW-4 (Bhaje Singh) all spoke of a heavy storm on the midnight of 8 April 1991. However, the court found their evidence internally inconsistent and unsupported by documents.
DW-1 admitted that not many wires fell in the subdivision that day and that no register or entry was produced to show that the line had been repaired a day before the accident. DW-2 (Phool Singh) contradicted DW-1 by stating that no electrical work was done in the village before the accident. DW-3, the lineman Bhanwar Singh, admitted he could not say when the line was last maintained, even though he claimed maintenance entries were made. He also admitted to being a resident of Bhinder, the town he was accused of frequenting instead of remaining at his posting in Javtari.
The respondents' witnesses told a different story. PW-1 (Uda, son of the deceased) stated that no storm occurred that night or in the preceding period, and that he had not seen the electric line repaired in the last three years. PW-2 (Babar Singh) confirmed that the weather that night was dry, with no storm, and that lineman Bhanwar Singh was not present in the village on the day of the incident.
Critically, the investigating authority's site inspection report (Naksha Mauka, Ex-2) recorded that the wire lying on the ground at the spot was rusted and had carbon deposits — consistent with long-term deterioration, not a sudden storm break. The court concluded that the electricity line had not been repaired for a long time and that the lineman was absent from his post. The findings of the trial court on issue Nos. 1 and 4 — negligence and liability respectively — were affirmed.
Strict Liability Applied Independently of Negligence
Beyond the negligence finding, the court invoked the principle of strict liability. It referred to two Supreme Court decisions. In Parvati Devi and Ors. v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 754, the Supreme Court held that once death by electrocution while walking on a road is established, the concerned authorities are necessarily negligent. In Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Ors., reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162, the Supreme Court held that a supplier of electricity has a primary liability to compensate when transmitted energy causes injury or death, and that a live snapped wire on a public road should automatically have disrupted the current — failure to ensure this attracts strict liability regardless of negligence.
The court found both decisions directly applicable. A live wire lay on the ground in a populated village. The Board supplied the electricity. Liability attached even setting aside the detailed negligence analysis, because the very nature of the activity — transmission of high-voltage electricity — places the supplier under a duty to prevent escape of such energy and to protect users from its hazard. The Act of God and contributory negligence defences were accordingly rejected.
Recomputing Compensation Under the Cross-Objection
The respondents' cross-objection raised five specific grievances about how the trial court calculated compensation. The High Court addressed each in turn.
Loss of dependency and minimum wages: The deceased was engaged in agricultural work at the time of the accident. PW-1's testimony on this point was unrebutted. No documentary proof of income was produced. Relying on Govind Yadav v. The New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 683, the court held that in the absence of evidence, loss of earnings must be assessed on the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time. The minimum wage at the time of the accident was Rs 22 per day, giving a monthly income of Rs 660 and an annual income of Rs 7,920.
Multiplier and future prospects: The deceased was 60 years old at the time of the accident. The court applied a multiplier of 9 consistent with that age bracket, arriving at Rs 71,280. An addition of 10% for future prospects was then made, as mandated by the principles in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. One-third of income was deducted for the deceased's personal expenses, given that there were two dependants. The dependency figure after these calculations came to Rs 52,272.
Loss of consortium: The trial court had awarded Rs 5,000 for loss of consortium to respondent No. 1 only. The High Court, following Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, held that each of the two respondents was entitled to Rs 40,000, giving a total of Rs 80,000 under this head.
Funeral expenses and loss of estate: The trial court had awarded Rs 2,000 for funeral expenses. The High Court enhanced this to Rs 15,000. The respondents were also awarded Rs 15,000 under the head of loss of estate, a head the trial court had not addressed.
The Revised Compensation Table
The court set out the recalculated figures in a tabular form. The monthly income was fixed at Rs 660 (Rs 22 x 30 days). Annual income at Rs 7,920. Applying multiplier 9 gave Rs 71,280. After deducting one-third for personal expenses (Rs 23,760), the figure became Rs 47,520. Adding 10% for future prospects (Rs 4,752) gave a dependency figure of Rs 52,272. Loss of consortium for two dependants came to Rs 80,000. Funeral expenses were Rs 15,000 and loss of estate Rs 15,000. The total compensation arrived at was Rs 1,62,272.
Since the trial court had already awarded Rs 40,330, the enhanced amount directed to be paid by the Board is Rs 1,21,942.
Order
The civil first appeal filed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its Assistant Engineer was dismissed as devoid of merit. The cross-objection filed by the respondents was partly allowed. The Board is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs 1,21,942 within two months from the date of the judgment. The enhanced amount will carry interest at the same rate — 6% per annum — as awarded by the trial court, computed from the date of filing of the civil suit. Disbursement of the enhanced amount is to be made in terms of the trial court's judgment and decree. All pending applications were disposed of, and the record is to be returned to the trial court.