The Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad dismissed the First Appeal filed by Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Ltd. (GETCO) and upheld the trial court’s award of Rs. 9,40,000/- with 9% interest per annum to the legal heirs of a deceased Maldhari who died due to electrocution.
Background of the Case
The deceased, Gemarsinh Rupsinh Sodha, was proceeding with his sheep and goats near an open canal of a tube well in the Ugamani Sim of Village Nana Reha on 24 April 2003. A 66 kV transmission line passing through the branches of a Boradi tree came into contact with him due to wind. He suffered severe electric shock injuries and succumbed during treatment at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad on 28 April 2003.
His widow and legal heirs filed Special Civil Suit No. 81 of 2007 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj, alleging negligence on the part of GETCO in maintaining the high-tension line. The trial court partly decreed the suit, directing GETCO to pay Rs. 9,40,000/- with 9% interest. Aggrieved, GETCO preferred the First Appeal under Section 96 CPC.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether the death occurred due to negligence on the part of GETCO or the deceased.
- Whether the principle of absolute/strict liability applies to electricity companies engaged in hazardous activities.
- Quantum of compensation and rate of interest.
Arguments by Parties
GETCO’s Contentions (Mr. Jayant P. Bhatt): The incident was solely due to the negligence of the deceased. He failed to take necessary care while passing near the tree. The compensation awarded and the 9% interest rate were excessive.
Plaintiffs’ Contentions (Mr. Henil M. Shah): The maintenance and operation of high-tension lines are exclusively under GETCO’s control. The company has a duty to ensure safety and take precautions. The death resulted from GETCO’s negligence, and the compensation awarded was just and proper.
Gujarat High Court’s Ruling
Justice J.C. Doshi, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal. The Court relied on landmark precedents establishing absolute liability for hazardous activities:
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086): Extended the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to impose absolute liability (strict liability without defences) on enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous activities. Electricity transmission qualifies as such an activity.
- H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath (2004) 5 SCC 793: Power companies must ensure safety even regarding unauthorised constructions near lines.
- Other Gujarat High Court precedents reinforcing the obligation of electricity companies to maintain insulated lines and prevent accidents.
The Court held that GETCO, being engaged in supplying a hazardous product like electricity, bears primary liability for injuries or deaths caused by contact with live wires. The principle of absolute liability applies irrespective of any alleged contributory negligence by the deceased. Electricity companies cannot escape liability by claiming the victim was negligent; they must maintain lines with due care and safety measures.
The trial court’s findings on negligence, compensation, and interest were found to be proper. No interference was warranted.
Key Takeaways
- Electricity companies carry on inherently dangerous activities and are subject to absolute/strict liability for accidents involving live wires.
- Maintenance of safe distance and insulation of high-tension lines is a non-delegable duty.
- Victims’ families are entitled to compensation without the need to prove individual negligence in every case.
- This judgment reinforces victim-centric jurisprudence in electrocution cases involving public utilities.
Case Details
Case Name: Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Ltd. v. Naniba wd/o Gemarsinh Rupsinh Sodha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 GLHC 34770
Case Number: R/First Appeal No. 1310 of 2012
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.C. Doshi
Court: Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad
Date of Judgment: 11 June 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 