A live power line falls from a pole. Someone walks into it and dies. A cricket ball lands on a high-tension wire. A person reaching to retrieve it is electrocuted. Are electricity boards automatically liable — no matter what happened, no matter who did what? The Hon'ble Supreme Court has drawn an important distinction: electricity boards are strictly liable for electrocution — but not absolutely liable. The difference matters significantly in practice.
Strict Liability vs. Absolute Liability
Strict liability means the electricity board is liable even without proof of negligence — the mere fact that their equipment caused the electrocution is sufficient to establish liability. However, certain defences remain available: act of God (unprecedented natural event), consent of the victim, act of a third party that the board could not have foreseen or prevented, and contributory negligence of the victim.
Absolute liability — a stricter standard applied to hazardous industries — allows no defences at all. The High Court had applied absolute liability to electricity boards. The Supreme Court held this was incorrect. The correct standard is strict liability, with defences available.
What This Means in Practice
In the case before the Court, two incidents were examined: a man who walked into a fallen 11KV line, and a person who tried to retrieve a cricket ball entangled in a 66KV line. The Court found that in the second case, the conduct of the victim (reaching into a high-tension wire to retrieve a ball) was a relevant factor in assessing liability and compensation.
Even under the strict liability standard, electricity boards remain liable in the vast majority of electrocution cases — because maintaining safe infrastructure is their non-delegable duty. You do not need to prove negligence; you only need to show that their equipment caused the electrocution. The board must then prove that one of the limited defences applies.
Practical Guidance
If a family member was electrocuted by power company equipment: file a claim before the consumer forum (DCDRC) or civil court. You do not need to prove that the electricity board was careless — strict liability means the burden shifts to them to explain the incident.
For motor accident cases involving electrocution: MACT jurisdiction may also apply depending on the circumstances. Multiple forums may be available.
The electricity board's defences — act of God or third-party act — are narrow and difficult to establish. Courts have consistently held electricity boards liable even where equipment failures occurred due to bad weather, unless the storm was truly unprecedented.
Frequently Asked Questions
Questions people commonly search on this topic