Electricity Company Strictly Liable For Death Due To Snapped Wire; Court Enhances Compensation Beyond Claimed Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions... 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," Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that electricity distribution companies are strictly liable for deaths caused by snapped live wires, regardless of whether negligence is proved.

A single-judge bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad observed that once a hazardous activity like electricity transmission causes injury or death, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer rests squarely on the supplier. The Court further emphasized its power to award "just compensation" even if it exceeds the amount originally claimed by the petitioners.

The case arose from the death of Sri Penumuchu Madhusudhana Rao, an agriculturist, who was electrocuted on December 24, 2011, after coming into contact with a snapped live wire while walking to a temple well. His widow and four daughters filed a writ petition seeking Rs. 5,00,000/- in damages from the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL). The official respondents did not file a counter-affidavit despite multiple opportunities but contended that the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as ex gratia settled their liability.

The primary question before the court was whether the death was occasioned by the negligence of the electricity department, making them strictly liable for compensation. The court was also called upon to determine the appropriate quantum of compensation and whether it could award an amount higher than the Rs. 5 Lakhs specifically prayed for in the writ petition.

Strict Liability Applied To Electrocution Incidents

The Court noted that the material on record, including the FIR and Post Mortem Certificate, clearly established the cause of death as respiratory arrest due to electric shock from a wire maintained by the respondents. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari (2002), the bench held that the principle of strict liability is squarely applicable to such cases.

The Court observed that those manning dangerous commodities like high-voltage electricity have an extra duty to prevent mishaps. Even if all safety measures were purportedly adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous exposure to human life remains liable under the law of torts for any injury suffered by others.

"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’."

Payment Of Ex Gratia Is Not An Admission Of Final Settlement

The Respondent company argued that since they had paid an ex gratia amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the petitioners were no longer entitled to further compensation. The Court rejected this plea, stating that compensatory jurisprudence has progressed to a stage where strict liability operates independently of any voluntary ex gratia payments made by the state or its instrumentalities.

The bench distinguished the present facts from the Hanuman Das case cited by the respondents, noting that in the current instance, the deceased was merely walking on a path when he hit the snapped wire. No contributory negligence could be attributed to the victim, unlike in cases where victims interfere with electrical installations.

"The plea that the Writ Petitioners are not entitled for any compensation due to advance payment of ex gratia cannot be accepted by this Court inasmuch as the compensatory jurisprudence has marched ahead in fixing the strict liability."

Application Of Multiplier Method For Agriculturists

To determine the quantum of compensation, the Court adopted the multiplier method used in Motor Vehicle Act cases, citing the precedent in M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood. Although the petitioners did not provide documentary proof of the deceased’s exact income, the Court categorized him as an "adult agriculturist" and applied the notional income standards set by the Supreme Court.

Following the recent ruling in Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb (2025), the Court fixed a notional monthly income of Rs. 6,000/-, totaling Rs. 72,000/- per annum. It added 10% for future prospects given the deceased was 58 years old and applied a multiplier of 9. After a 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, the loss of dependency was calculated alongside sums for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium.

Court’s Duty To Award ‘Just Compensation’ Beyond The Claim

A pivotal aspect of the judgment was the Court’s decision to award Rs. 8,37,900/-, despite the petitioners restricting their prayer to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Justice Ramakrishna Prasad relied on Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) to reiterate that there is no legal restriction preventing a court from awarding an amount exceeding the claim if it constitutes "just compensation."

The Court emphasized that the function of the judiciary in such beneficial and welfare-oriented litigation is to ensure the compensation is reasonable and based on evidence. Since the law regarding income assessment for labourers has evolved significantly since the petition was filed in 2012, the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the current legal standards.

"There is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the court is to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable."

Direction Regarding Non-Arrayed Legal Heirs

The Court also observed that one of the deceased’s four daughters had not been arrayed as a petitioner. In an act of equitable justice, the Court directed the respondent authorities to identify this daughter and ensure she receives her share of the compensation, particularly under the head of "loss of consortium."

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing APSPDCL to transfer the calculated amount of Rs. 7,37,900/- (after deducting the ex gratia already paid) plus 6% interest per annum from the date of filing in 2012 to the petitioners' bank accounts within twelve weeks.

Date of Decision: 27 April 2026