JUDGMENT : DR.A.K.RATH, J. This is a defendants’ appeal against an affirming judgment. 2. Respondent no.1 is the widow and respondent nos.2 to 5 are the son and daughters of one Saudagar Meher. On 17.09.2007 evening night, Saudagar Meher was watching an opera show organised by defendant no.4. Defendant no.4 had taken electric connection from the nearby transformer. At about 12 A.M., electric sparked from the transformer, whereafter current passed to the iron grill installed by the opera. Saudagar Meher came in contact with the grill and succumbed to injuries. Naked electric wires were hanging from the electric post. P.S. No. 60 of 2007 was registered. Thereafter respondent nos.1 to 5 as plaintiffs instituted C.S. No. 27 of 2009 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Bargarh claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-for the death of Saudagar Meher. It is pleaded that Saudagar Meher died due to electrocution. Defendant nos.1 to 3 had not taken adequate precaution while according permission to the defendant no.4. Saudagar Meher, deceased was aged about 27 years. He was a weaver by profession. After his death the family received a serious setback. 3. Defendant nos.1 to 3 filed their written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that no permission was accorded to defendant no.4. They had no knowledge about the unauthorised connection of electric supply. The liability cannot be fastened on them for the unauthorised connection of electric wire by defendant no.4. Defendant no.4 filed his written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck seven issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined three witnesses including plaintiff no.1 and on their behalf four documents had been exhibited. One witness was examined by the defendants. On a threadbare analysis of evidence on record as well as pleadings, the learned trial court came to hold that Saudagar Meher, husband of the plaintiff no.1 died due to electrocution while watching an opera show. There was negligence on the part of the defendants for which accident occurred on 17.09.2007. Applying principle of strict liability, the learned trial court held that the defendant nos.1 to 3 are also liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. It further held that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased. There was negligence on the part of the defendants for which accident occurred on 17.09.2007. Applying principle of strict liability, the learned trial court held that the defendant nos.1 to 3 are also liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. It further held that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased. Held so, the learned trial court awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation with 6% interest. The defendant nos.1 to 3 unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court in the court of the learned District Judge, Bargarh in R.F.A. No. 45 of 2013, which was eventually dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Saudagar Meher was watching an opera show on the date of occurrence. The manager of the opera show took electric connection unauthorisedly. The accident occurred due to negligence of the manager of the opera show. There was no negligence on the part of the defendants in maintaining the electric wire. He further submits that the defendants were not aware of unauthorised electric connection. There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The plaintiffs had not lodged an F.I.R. against the unauthorised electric connection. Since the incident occurred in the rural area at mid night, it was not possible on the part of the electric company to keep a vigil on the same. The courts below travelled beyond their jurisdiction in applying the principle of doctrine of strict liability and saddled liability on the defendants. 7. An identical case came up for consideration of this Court in case of T.Bimala vs. Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack and others, 2015 (II) ILR-CUT-1. In the said case, the son of appellant was working as a daily wage earner under the contractors of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation. On 15.05.2009 on the instruction of the Junior Engineer of the Corporation, he was cleaning the drain near Sunshine Field, Cuttack. During such cleaning, he suddenly came in contact with the live electric wire and died at the spot due to electrocution. Immediately after the accidental death, the Mayor of the Corporation came to the spot and paid an ex gratia of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter neither the Municipal authorities, nor the electricity authorities paid any compensation to the appellant. During such cleaning, he suddenly came in contact with the live electric wire and died at the spot due to electrocution. Immediately after the accidental death, the Mayor of the Corporation came to the spot and paid an ex gratia of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter neither the Municipal authorities, nor the electricity authorities paid any compensation to the appellant. An F.I.R. was also lodged by the Sub-Divisional Officer, whereafter Purighat P.S. Case No.49(5) of 2009 was registered against one Babuli Sahoo under Sections 338/379/304(A), I.P.C. read with Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. When all the persuasion of the appellant to pay compensation ended in a fiasco, she filed the writ application claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.1-Corporation. Though the accident was admitted, but a stand was taken that the Corporation had no role to play. Respondent nos.2 and 3 had also filed a counter affidavit. The sum and substance of the case of the respondent nos.2 and 3 is that they had taken all precautionary steps to avoid theft of electricity and to avoid any wrong to any person or animal. The electricity had been supplied to the consumers of that area through insulated cable. In spite of that one Sudhakar Sahoo of Upper Telenga Bazar without their knowledge committed theft by hooking and by concealing the hooking wires through that drain. The said theft was not in their knowledge. Thus they were not negligent in any manner. Further the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as he had not taken proper care before cleaning the drain. The appellant filed writ petition before this Court claiming compensation. 8. The learned Single Judge relying on two decisions of the apex Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others v. Smt. Sukamani Das and another, (1999) 7 SCC 298 and S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. And others v. Timudu Oram, AIR 2005 SC 3971 came to hold that since disputed questions of fact are involved, the writ application is not maintainable. She filed writ appeal before this Court. One of the question arose before the Division Bench as to whether respondent nos.2 and 3 (electric company) can deny the liability on the ground that the death of the son of the appellant was due to act of a third party. 9. She filed writ appeal before this Court. One of the question arose before the Division Bench as to whether respondent nos.2 and 3 (electric company) can deny the liability on the ground that the death of the son of the appellant was due to act of a third party. 9. This Court held as follows:- “13. A person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. 14. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English Common Law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher, 1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330, Justice Blackburn had observed thus: “The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” 15. There are seven exceptions formulated by means of case law to the said doctrine. One of the exceptions is that “Act of stranger i.e. if the escape was caused by the unforeceable act of a stranger, the rule does not apply”. (Winfield on Tort, 15th Edn. Page 535). 16. The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many subsequent decisions in England and decisions of the apex Court are a legion to that effect. A Constitution Bench of the apex Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 and a Division Bench in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. V. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, AIR 1987 SC 1690 had followed with approval the principle in Rylands (supra). The same principle was reiterated in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 485 . xxx xxx xxx 19. V. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, AIR 1987 SC 1690 had followed with approval the principle in Rylands (supra). The same principle was reiterated in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 485 . xxx xxx xxx 19. In M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and others, AIR 2002 SC 551 , one Jogendra Singh, a workman in a factory, was returning from his factory on the night of 23.8.1997 riding on a bicycle. There was rain and hence the road was partially inundated with water. The cyclist did not notice the live wire on the road and hence he rode the vehicle over the wire which twitched and snatched him and he was instantaneously electrocuted. He fell down and died within minutes. When the action was brought by his widow and minor son, a plea was taken by the Board that one Hari Gaikwad had taken a wire from the main supply line in order to siphon the energy for his own use and the said act of pilferage was done clandestinely without even the notice of the Board and that the line got unfastened from the hook and it fell on the road over which the cycle ridden by the deceaseds slided resulting in the instantaneous electrocution. In paragraph 7, the apex Court held as follows: “It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human, being, who gets unknowingly trapped into if the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.” 20. The principle of res ipsa loquitur is well known. It is explained in a very illustrative passage in Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 16th Edn., pp. 568-569, which reads as follows: “Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence is, as pointed out, that he should establish his case by a pre-ponderance of probabilities. This he will normally have to do by proving that the other party acted carelessly. Such evidence is not always forthcoming. It is possible, however, in certain cases for him to rely on the mere fact that something happened as affording prima facie evidence of want of due care on the other’s part: ‘res ipsa loquitur is a principle which helps him to do so’. In effect, therefore, reliance on it is a confession by the plaintiff that he has no affirmative evidence of negligence. The classic statement of the circumstances in which he is able to do so is by Erle, C.J.: ‘There must be reasonable evidence of negligence. But where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.’ It is no more than a rule of evidence and states no principle of law. “This convenient and succinct formula”, said Morris, L.J., “possesses no magic qualities; nor has it any added virtue, other than that of brevity, merely because it is expressed in Latin”. “This convenient and succinct formula”, said Morris, L.J., “possesses no magic qualities; nor has it any added virtue, other than that of brevity, merely because it is expressed in Latin”. It is only a convenient label to apply to a set of circumstances in which a plaintiff proves a case so as to call for a rebuttal from the defendant, without having to allege and prove any specific act or omission on the part of the defendant. He merely proves a result, not any particular act or omission producing the result. The court hears only the plaintiff’s side of the story, and if this makes it more probable than not that the occurrence was caused by the negligence of the defendant, the doctrine res ipsa loquitur is said to apply, and the plaintiff will be entitled to succeed unless the defendant by evidence rebuts that probability. It is not necessary for res ipsa loquitur to be specifically pleaded.” 10. Admittedly, Saudagar Meher, husband of the plaintiff no.1, died due to electrocution. The post mortem report was exhibited as Ext.2. The same revealed that the death of Saudagar Meher was due to electrocution. Merely because of criminal prosecution was not launched, same is not per se a ground to denude liability. Both the courts below concurrently held that Saudagar Meher died due to electrocution. There is no perversity in the findings of the courts below. As held above, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. The defendant cannot shirk its responsibility on trivial grounds. For the lackadaisical attitude exhibited by the defendant, a valuable life was lost. The ration in the case of T.Bimala (supra) applies with full force to the facts of this case. 11. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, since the same does not involve any substantial question of law.