NEW DELHI: The Gujarat High Court has upheld a compensation order against Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Ltd (GETCO) for the death of a herder who was electrocuted by a 66,000-volt power line in 2003.
Justice J. C. Doshi held that an electricity transmission company cannot avoid liability by blaming the victim. Since GETCO was engaged in the hazardous activity of transmitting electricity, it was bound by the principle of “absolute liability” and had to pay compensation, as per a report by LiveLaw.
What was the issue
On 24 April 2003, Gemarsinh Rupsinh Sodha, a Maldhari livestock herder from a village near Bhuj, was grazing sheep and goats near a tube well canal. A 66 kV transmission line passed through a nearby tree. Due to strong winds, the branches touched the live wire and carried electricity to Sodha, causing severe burns. He died four days later on 28 April 2003 while undergoing treatment at Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad.
His widow, Naniba, filed a suit before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj, seeking Rs 10 lakh compensation. She alleged negligence by GETCO.
GETCO denied responsibility and claimed that the accident happened due to the “sole negligency of the deceased.” In January 2012, the trial court awarded Rs 9.40 lakh compensation with 9 percent annual interest. GETCO challenged the order before the high court, arguing that it was not negligent and that the compensation was excessive.
The family argued that the power lines were under GETCO’s control and the company had a duty to safely install and maintain them.
What did the court say
The high court rejected GETCO’s appeal and held that an electricity company dealing with a hazardous activity cannot escape liability once an accident occurs.
Justice Doshi relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which developed the principle of “absolute liability” for companies engaged in dangerous activities.
The court also referred to Haryana State Electricity Board v. Ram Nath, where the Supreme Court held that electricity authorities must ensure their systems do not harm people.
Justice Doshi explained that unlike ordinary negligence law, absolute liability does not allow a company to avoid responsibility by claiming it took precautions.
The court held that GETCO “would not be at privilege to claim negligence of the deceased” as a defence.
The high court dismissed GETCO’s appeal and upheld the trial court’s order directing payment of Rs 9.40 lakh with 9 percent annual interest.
About the Author
TOI Legal Desk: The TOI Legal Desk is a dedicated team of journalists committed to tracking and reporting on courts, legal developments, and judicial proceedings across the country and world.
