‘Lost Both Arms at 7’: Allahabad High Court Rejects Negligence Defence In Electrocution Case, Awards ₹26.65 Lakh After 29 Years

The Allahabad High Court recently awarded ₹26.65 lakh in compensation to a man who lost both his arms in a transformer electrocution incident as a child, nearly 29 years after the accident, holding the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board liable and overturning a trial court decision that had denied him relief.

Deciding the appeal, court noted that despite the passage of almost three decades since the March 1, 1997 incident, the injured plaintiff had yet to receive just compensation for the life-altering injuries he suffered at the age of seven. Taking note of this prolonged delay, court refused to remand the matter and instead quantified compensation at ₹26.65 lakh with interest at 6% per annum.

The case arose from a suit filed by Pappu, who, as a Class II student, came into contact with an 11,000/400 volt transformer installed near a primary school in Nangla Padi, Agra. The transformer had been placed in an open space barely three feet from the school building and was not secured by any fencing or protective barrier.

According to the plaintiff, local residents had repeatedly raised concerns about the unsafe installation, but no steps were taken by the authorities. On the day of the incident, while playing with other children near the school, he accidentally touched the transformer and suffered severe electric burns. The injuries were so grave that both his arms had to be amputated, one above the elbow and the other below.

He remained hospitalised for extended periods and was left permanently disabled, unable to perform basic daily activities without assistance. The suit sought ₹58.47 lakh in compensation under various heads including loss of earning capacity, cost of lifelong care, medical expenses, and mental trauma.

The Electricity Board did not dispute that the incident occurred but argued that it was the result of the child’s own negligence. It maintained that the transformer had been installed in accordance with rules and further pointed out that ₹1.25 lakh had already been paid following proceedings before the National Human Rights Commission.

The trial court accepted this defence and dismissed the suit in 2005, holding that the accident occurred due to the plaintiff’s negligence. It also cited delay in lodging the FIR and absence of statutory notice as grounds to deny relief.

Setting aside these findings, the bench of Justice Sandeep Jain held that the trial court’s approach was legally flawed. The high court found that the Electricity Board had failed to produce any evidence to establish that the transformer was installed with adequate safety measures or in compliance with applicable regulations. It also drew an adverse inference against the Board for not leading evidence or entering the witness box to substantiate its defence.

Court reiterated that electrocution cases involving high-voltage infrastructure attract the principle of strict liability, under which the victim is not required to prove negligence. It held that once it is established that the injury was caused by electrical equipment maintained by the authority, liability follows.

Rejecting the plea of contributory negligence, court observed that a seven-year-old child cannot be expected to appreciate the risks posed by such infrastructure. It further noted that the transformer was located immediately outside a school, making it foreseeable that children could come into contact with it.

Court also rejected the trial court’s reliance on procedural objections, holding that failure to give notice under the Electricity Act does not bar a civil claim for compensation. It termed the dismissal of the suit as a “travesty of justice,” particularly in light of the admitted fact that the plaintiff had suffered electrocution from the defendant’s transformer.

Holding that the plaintiff had suffered 100% functional disability and would remain dependent on others throughout his life, court assessed compensation under multiple heads including future loss of income, attendant charges, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, and allowed the appeal with costs.

Also Read|Delhi HC Grants Ex Gratia Compensation To Parents Of 18 Year Old Boy Electrocuted To Death

Case Title: Pappu vs U.P. State Electricity Board Its Principal Officer

Judgment Date: April 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Sandeep Jain