AIR 2002 SC 551

Guided By: Submitted By:Mrs. Sabiha Zaidi Shuja Haider Rizvi 1st Semester

It is my imperative duty to thank the following people for the successful completion of my Contract law project,

Professor Sabiha Anjum Zaidi for the clarity she brings into teaching thus enabling us to have a better understanding of her subject.

Idrish M. Raes & Kashif Zafar, My resourceful classmate, who I ran into in the library, thus un-expectedly starting and successfully completing a rough handwritten draft of this project within the next 6 days.

The very cooperative and friendly staff members in the Central and Law Library who were instrumental in our finding the necessary books without wasting much time. It has to be noted that their contribution is essential as our University is yet to get a fully functional centralized database for its libraries.

Overview

Case name: M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar

Citation: AIR 2002 SC 551

Bench: K Thomas, S Phukan

Court: Supreme Court

Principle: Strict Liability

Summary of the Case

A factory workman, Jogendra Singh, died after being electrocuted by a live wire lying on the road which could not be seen due to the water inundated

roads caused by rains. The widow of the workman brought an action against the Electricity Supply Board and held the Board liable for the death owing to

their negligence and carelessness in managing the wire lines.

In their defense the Board held some third person, Hari Prasad, liable saying that he committed an act of pilferage and the illegal line drawn from the

main supply was unhooked due to which the workman was deceased. But the court said that it was a case which lie under the law of Strict Liability and third party intervention is no defense to it. Hence, the appellant Board was held liable owing to their carelessness in managing the wires carrying

potentially high voltage capable of causing injuries and death.

CASE MATERIAL

Jogendra Singh, a workman in a factory, aged 37, was riding on a bicycle on the night of 23.8.1997 while returning from his factory, without any

premonition of the impending disaster awaiting him en-route. The disaster was lying on the road in form of a live wire. There was rain and hence he rode the vehicle over the wire which twitched and snatched him and was

instantaneously electrocuted. He fell down and died within minutes.

When the action was brought by his widow and minor son, nobody disputed the fact that Jogendra Singh died at the place and time mentioned by the

claimants. Nor has it been disputed that he was electrocuted by the live wire lying on the road. The main contention advanced by the appellant Board is

that one Hari Prasad (third respondent) had taken a wire from the main supply line in order to siphon the energy for his own use and the said act of pilferage was done clandestinely without even the notice of the Board, and that the line got unfastened from the hook and it fell on the road over which

the cycle ridden by the deceased slided resulting in the instantaneous electrocution.

It is admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death to human being, who gets unknowingly

trapped into it, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity

transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimensions the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not

remain live on the road as users of such roads would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody

committed mischief by siphoning such energy for his private use and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the duty of the managers of

the supply system to prevent such pilferages by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snaped and fell on a public road the electric

current thereon should auotomatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures

to prevent such mishaps.

Even assuming that all such measures were taken, a person undertaking any activity involving hazardous risks or risky exposures to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent

in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises

on the account of negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by

taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that can be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any

negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could

have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.

Judgment given:

Thomas J. said that the law of strict liability is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The Board made an endeavor to rely on the exception to the rule of strict liability but it was stated unavailable to the Board as the act

attributed to the third respondent should reasonably have been anticipated or at any rate its consequences should have been prevented by the appellant

Board and their appeal was discarded by the court.

Press Release:

SC held MPEB liable for negligence, Compensation granted

New Delhi: On the evening of 28.8.1997, a man named Jogindra Singh while going home on cycle. Without any premonition of the impending disaster awaiting him en-route in the form of wet wire due to rain. As he

rode his cycle over the wire, He was instantly electrocuted and died. The suit was brought by his widow and minor son

against the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. The MPEB claimed that the Board is not liable to pay as it is a intervening or third party act by person naming Hari Gaikwad. He had taken off the wire from Electric Pole for his

personal use. Due to his negligence the calamity occurred. The Jury made a very wise decision by allowing the appeal and by directing the Board to compensate the amount of 4.3 lacks to

the claimants. The Judges said “Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings”. They applied the rule of Strict Liability of St laid down Ryland v Fletcher (1868) (L.R. 3 H.L. 330)  . The rule was “"The rule of law is that the person who,

for his own purpose, brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril; and if

he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."

The court dismissed the case by granting the required sum to the aggrieved party.