M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar
An authority handling a dangerous commodity like electricity is strictly liable for death by electrocution from a snapped live wire, and cannot escape via the act-of-stranger defence where the danger was foreseeable.
Facts
On the rainy night of 23-8-1997, Joginder Singh, aged 37, was cycling home from his factory when he came into contact with a snapped live electric wire lying on a partially flooded road and died instantly by electrocution. The wire's danger was concealed by darkness and water. His widow and minor son sued the M.P. Electricity Board for compensation.
Issues
- Whether the Electricity Board was strictly liable for the death caused by the snapped live wire.
- Whether the Board could escape liability by pleading that the snapping was caused by the act of a stranger pilfering electricity.
Arguments
The claimants contended the Board, handling a dangerous commodity, was strictly liable and had failed in its extra duty to prevent such mishaps. The Board pleaded that the wire may have snapped due to the act of a stranger attempting to pilfer electricity, an exception to strict liability.
Held
The Supreme Court applied the rule of strict liability, holding that the Board had a statutory duty to supply electricity and that if the energy it transmits causes injury or death to a person who unknowingly gets trapped by it, the supplier is liable. The Court emphasised that if a wire snaps, the current should automatically be cut off, and that authorities handling such dangerous commodities owe an extra duty to devise measures to prevent such mishaps. The defence that the snapping was due to the act of a stranger pilfering electricity was rejected, because such an act should have been foreseen and its consequences prevented by the Board.
Ratio decidendi
An authority supplying electricity, a dangerous commodity, is strictly liable for death or injury caused by a live snapped wire; the act-of-stranger defence is unavailable where the stranger's act and its consequences were reasonably foreseeable and preventable.
Significance
A leading modern Indian application of the strict-liability rule to electrocution and public-utility hazards. It illustrates the foreseeability limit on the act-of-stranger exception and reinforces the heightened, non-delegable duty of those handling inherently dangerous commodities.
Related
Test yourself on Law of Torts. Application-level MCQs with instant scoring.
