#electrocution compensation

The Bombay High Court has ruled that MSEDCL must pay Rs. 4 lakh compensation under its administrative circulars to the widow of a deceased contractor worker killed in an electrocution, clarifying that 'outsider' status under the policy extends to workers of third-party contractors engaged by the utility. This sets a critical precedent for humanitarian relief obligations of public utilities beyond statutory employer liability, impacting thousands of contract workers across Maharashtra’s power sector.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) is strictly liable for fatal electrocution accidents on its public network under its 2019 policy, mandating compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The ruling underscores that electricity distribution is a hazardous activity, making UHBVN liable regardless of fault or the cause of the accident.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the electricity board is strictly liable for fatal electrocution caused by a live supporting wire, even without proof of negligence, applying the doctrine of Rylands v Fletcher. This reinforces that public utilities cannot evade compensation for inherently dangerous activities, setting a critical precedent for consumer safety and tort accountability in infrastructure management.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that strict liability under the Electricity Act, 2003 overrides humanitarian compensation policies, awarding Rs.99.94 lakh to a six-year-old electrocution victim. The judgment includes compensation for future prospects, attendant care, and loss of marriage prospects, setting a precedent for full reparation in public utility liability cases involving children.

Kerala High Court holds that electricity boards are strictly liable for electrocution deaths, irrespective of negligence or point of supply, under Rylands v. Fletcher and M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari.

Bombay High Court grants additional Rs. 25 lakh compensation for severe electrocution injuries, clarifying limits of writ jurisdiction and preserving right to pursue civil remedies.