Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court

"It is apparent that it is not expected from a child of 7 years of age to be aware of the imminent danger from a transformer, as such, the defendant cannot take the plea of negligence on the part of the plaintiff, for avoiding its tortious liability," Allahabad High Court.

The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the principle of strict liability applies to cases of electrocution from high-tension electrical infrastructure, and a child of tender age cannot be held liable for contributory negligence. A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed that authorities manning such hazardous installations have an absolute duty to safeguard the public, awarding a compensation of ₹26.65 lakhs to a boy whose both hands were amputated after he came into contact with an unfenced transformer.

The plaintiff, a 7-year-old student, was playing near his primary school in Agra when he accidentally came into contact with an unprotected 11,000/400 Volts transformer installed by the U.P. State Electricity Board barely three feet from the school building. The severe electrocution resulted in the amputation of both his hands and arms. The trial court dismissed his suit for compensation, concluding that the accident occurred due to the child's own negligence, prompting the present first appeal before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the electricity board could evade liability by claiming contributory negligence on the part of a 7-year-old child. The court was also called upon to determine whether the plaintiff was required to prove the defendant's negligence, or if the principle of strict liability governed injuries caused by unprotected high-tension electrical equipment.

Strict Liability For Hazardous Electrical Equipment

The High Court heavily criticized the trial court's reasoning, emphasizing that electricity transmitted at high voltages is an inherently hazardous activity. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, the bench clarified that the supplier of electric energy bears primary liability to compensate any injured person. The court noted that "in cases of electrocution by broken electricity line or any electrical infrastructure/equipment connected to it, the principle of strict liability is applicable."

No Proof Of Board's Negligence Required

Elaborating on the doctrine of strict liability, the bench stated that a victim is not required to prove laxity or negligence by the electricity department. The court held that "in cases of strict liability, the negligence of the defendant or its servants/employees is not to be proved." The court observed that the plaintiff successfully proved he suffered electrocution injuries from the defendant's high-tension equipment, which was sufficient to trigger liability.

"The plaintiff is only required to prove that he died or suffered injuries due to electrocution from the high tension electricity line or the electrical infrastructure/equipment of the defendant."

Contributory Negligence Inapplicable To Children

The court firmly rejected the electricity board's defence that the child was the author of his own wrong. Noting the tender age of the victim, the bench observed that a child functions according to instinct and innocence, lacking the continuous thinking process required to apprehend imminent peril. The court stressed that the board, being aware of the primary school's proximity to the transformer, owed a heightened duty of care to protect the installation with proper fencing or caging.

Adverse Presumption Under Section 114(g) Evidence Act

The bench took strong exception to the electricity board's failure to present any official in the witness box to substantiate its claim that the transformer was installed as per safety rules. Noting this evidentiary void, the court held that "an adverse presumption has to be drawn against the defendant, on the basis of principles contained in Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872." The court presumed that the board's defence of having undertaken requisite safety measures was entirely false.

Section 33 Of Electricity Act Does Not Bar Suits

The High Court also set aside the trial court's finding that the suit was barred because the plaintiff failed to issue a notice under Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The bench clarified that the statutory provision only obliges the reporting of an accident to the Electrical Inspector. The court expressly stated that "nowhere it is mentioned that if it is not complied with, then the suit claiming compensation cannot be filed against the defendant."

100% Functional Disability And Compensation

Assessing the damages, the court recognized that the amputation of both hands rendered the plaintiff 100 percent functionally disabled, permanently ruining his childhood and future earning capacity. The court calculated the compensation based on the minimum wages of a skilled workman, adding a 40 percent component for future prospects, and applying a multiplier of 18. The final award included attendant charges, future medical expenses for an artificial limb, and compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of marriage prospects.

The High Court set aside the trial court's impugned judgment, terming its findings perverse, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The U.P. State Electricity Board was directed to pay a net compensation of ₹26.65 lakhs with 6 percent interest from 1997. The court additionally issued strict directions to deposit the awarded sum in a fixed deposit to ensure the disabled plaintiff's lifelong financial security, allowing withdrawals only with the leave of the court.

Date of Decision: 15 April 2026