Volenti Non Fit Injuria — No Strict Liability Where Victim Fell on Live Wire from Owner’s Unsafe Terrace: Madras High Court

“A person, who voluntarily falls on the live wire, cannot ask for compensation from the Electricity Board” — Madras High Court set aside a ₹5,08,400 compensation award against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) for the electrocution death of a man who fell from an open terrace onto a high-tension line, holding that the incident was due to the deceased’s own negligence and not any operational lapse by the Board.

Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran ruled that the trial court had wrongly applied the principle of strict liability from Rylands v. Fletcher and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, when the facts squarely attracted the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria — voluntary assumption of risk.

The deceased, Ponmudi, had gone to the terrace of a commercial building without a parapet wall, engaged in a mobile phone conversation, and fell towards the high-tension wire, sustaining fatal burns. The Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai, had found the Electricity Board liable for not providing protective casing for the line and awarded damages to his widow, two children, and mother.

On appeal, the TNEB argued that the high-tension (HT) and low-tension (LT) lines were maintained properly, and that the building owner bore responsibility for safety structures like parapet walls. Evidence showed the wire ran 5.8 feet away from the terrace edge, making accidental contact unlikely without reckless movement.

The High Court agreed, observing: “This is the case where the accident had not occurred in connection with the electricity line or its maintenance… A person walking on an unbounded open terrace has fallen on the wire… earning volenti non fit injuria. If at all any negligence is to be fixed, it can only be the owner of the building and not the Electricity Board.”

The Court also held that the claim against the building owner was vitiated by non-joinder of necessary parties, since the property was co-owned by 20 persons but only one was impleaded:

“Even the 3rd defendant cannot be asked to pay compensation… without impleading the others, the plaintiffs have to suffer.”

Justice Jayachandran clarified that the doctrine of strict liability “cannot be expanded” to impose liability in situations of clear contributory negligence or voluntary exposure to danger, and that the Board’s duty arises only in connection with its operations or maintenance failures.

Allowing the appeal, the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety, closed connected miscellaneous petitions, and made no order as to costs.

Date of Decision: 28 July 2025