Electricity Board Liable For Electrocution Even If Third Party Stole Power; 750m Illegal Line Suggests Lack Of Monitoring: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"So long as transmission of electricity poses foreseeable risk of danger to human life, the supplier bears primary liability to compensate, irrespective of negligence," Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an Electricity Board cannot escape liability for an electrocution death by merely pleading that the accident was caused by a third party’s illegal tapping of power.

A single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Jain observed that electricity is a "dangerous commodity" attracting the principle of strict liability, and the supplier remains responsible for foreseeable risks inherent in its distribution.

The case arose from the death of Ram Sumiran Kori, who was electrocuted in November 2010 while guarding his crops after coming into contact with a bare wire illegally pulled from an electricity pole. The wire had been clandestinely extended 750 meters by a third party to supply power to a private farm. The M.P. Electricity Board challenged a trial court decree awarding Rs. 4.45 Lakh in compensation, arguing it could not be expected to patrol every line in the "dead of night" to prevent such thefts.

The primary question before the court was whether the Electricity Board could be held liable for a death caused by the illegal act of a stranger tapping into its supply lines. The court was also called upon to determine if the "act of a stranger" exception to the rule of strict liability could be invoked when the illegal activity was of a scale that suggested a lack of reasonable monitoring.

Board’s Admission of Lack of Resources

The court noted the testimony of the Electricity Board’s own witness, an Executive Engineer, who admitted that such accidents are "unavoidable" due to a lack of resources. The bench observed that this testimony established a lack of reasonable care and precaution on the part of the Board in taking measures to prevent such hazardous incidents.

"Due to lack of resources with the Electricity Board, such type of accidents are unavoidable... He therefore, admitted such facts that establish that there was lack of reasonable care."

750-Metre Illegal Line Proves Long-Term Negligence

A critical piece of evidence was the spot map, which revealed that the illegal wires extended 750 meters from the Board's pole. The court found it impossible to believe that such an extensive layout could have been installed in a single night. The bench remarked that this was a "planned attempt of theft" that had likely been occurring for a long time without the Board’s intervention.

Theft Over Such Distances Cannot Happen In A Single Night

The court emphasized that the Board failed to register any theft case against the culprit even after the accident. The bench noted that the manner in which the wires were pulled made it evident that the Electricity Board failed in its duty to monitor its supply system effectively, thereby allowing the dangerous situation to persist.

"It depicts that theft must have been taking place since a long time. Therefore, the defence of the appellants could not be accepted that in the night if somebody has pulled some illegal wire then it cannot be monitored."

Strict Liability for Dangerous Commodities

Applying the doctrine of strict liability, the court reiterated that a person or entity dealing with a dangerous commodity like electricity is liable for any harm caused by its escape or leakage. It held that the negligence of the supplier does not need to be proved by the claimants; rather, the supplier must prove it falls under a narrow set of exceptions.

Negligence Need Not Be Proved In Electrocution Cases

Citing the Supreme Court precedent in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari (2002), the High Court held that the basis of liability is the "foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity." The court noted that the concept of strict liability differs from regular negligence because the defendant is held liable regardless of whether they took precautions.

"The supplier bears primary liability to compensate, irrespective of negligence... The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity."

'Act of Stranger' Exception Not Available

The court rejected the Board's attempt to rely on the "act of a stranger" exception from Rylands v. Fletcher. The bench held that this exception is unavailable if the stranger’s act could have been reasonably anticipated or if its consequences could have been prevented by the utility provider.

High Degree Of Care Expected From Public Utilities

The High Court observed that because the risk involved in electricity transmission is so great, a high degree of care is expected. Since the Board ought to have appreciated the possibility of such a large-scale leakage or theft, it could not claim the unauthorized act of the third party as a total defense.

The High Court concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the trial court's well-reasoned judgment. It affirmed the decree directing the Board and the third party to jointly and severally pay the compensation. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing that public utilities bear a non-delegable duty to ensure the safety of their hazardous infrastructure.

Date of Decision: 24 June 2026