High Court of Gujarat
R/First Appeal No. 1079 of 2019 (arising out of Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhambhalia)
17/08/2026
Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi
Chief Engineer, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (PGVCL) & Ors. (Appellant / Original Defendant) vs. Jhanjiben Nagabhai Gojiya & Ors. (Respondent / Original Plaintiff)
"Disclaimer: This article is a simplified summary of the court judgment prepared for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or an official legal document. For complete facts and full context, please refer to the official judgment attached below."
- What Was the Case About: On September 1, 2013, a 44-year-old farmer named Nagabhai Chanabhai Gojiya was carrying out agricultural work in his field when he came into contact with an uninsulated earthing wire connected to a transformer. The electric shock caused severe burns that resulted in his death. His widow, Jhanjiben Nagabhai Gojiya, and family filed a civil suit against Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) seeking compensation [3.1, 4]. The trial court awarded ₹9,85,000/- with 9% annual interest to the victim's family, which PGVCL challenged in the High Court [2, 3.5].
- Key Arguments: PGVCL argued that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased farmer and claimed that the trial court calculated compensation on the higher side by incorrectly assessing yearly agricultural income and using a multiplier formula. The victim's family argued that the death occurred strictly due to PGVCL's failure to maintain insulated earthing wires on the field transformer and maintained that the compensation of ₹9,85,000/- was just and fair for losing the sole breadwinner of the family [3.1, 12, 32].
- What Did the Court Decide: The High Court dismissed PGVCL's appeal and confirmed the trial court's order directing PGVCL to pay ₹9,85,000/- with 9% annual interest to the deceased farmer's family. Citing Supreme Court precedents (Karnataka Power Transmission Corp. Ltd. v. Rekha and Raman v. UHBVN), the Court held that supplying electricity is a dangerous activity governed by the principle of Strict Liability. Under strict liability, electricity companies are automatically responsible for paying compensation when uninsulated wires cause death, without being allowed to claim lack of negligence. The Court further ruled that ₹9,85,000/- is a fair and reasonable compensation for the loss of a 44-year-old sole breadwinner.
Why This Judgment Matters to Everyday Citizens
This judgment provides vital safety protection and legal reassurance for agricultural workers, landowners, and everyday citizens who live and work near electrical infrastructure. By enforcing the legal doctrine of Strict Liability, the court ensures that power distribution companies cannot escape financial responsibility or blame victims when uninsulated wires, faulty earthing systems, or transformer leaks cause fatal accidents. For ordinary families, it guarantees that if a loved one dies due to hazardous electrical installations, the utility company must pay prompt, just compensation to support the surviving dependents, compelling power suppliers to maintain strict safety standards across public and rural areas.
Applicable Laws and Sections
- Acts Applicable: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Electricity Act, 2003; Law of Torts (Doctrine of Strict Liability).
- Key Sections:
- Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Grants the statutory right to file a First Appeal before the High Court against a decree passed by a trial court.
- Section 57 of the Electricity Act, 2003: Outlines the statutory liability of electricity distribution licensees to pay compensation for failing to meet safety and performance standards.
- Doctrine of Strict Liability (Law of Torts): A legal rule imposing mandatory financial liability on entities conducting hazardous operations (such as high-voltage power distribution) for any resulting injury or death, regardless of whether direct fault or negligence is proven.