JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the Electricity Board, being aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai, passing a decree for Rs.5,08,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 2. For the accidental death of one Ponmudi, the plaintiffs are the wife, mother, two minor children. According to them, on 19.09.2009, at about 6.00 p.m., the said Ponmudi went to the open terrace without parapet wall and while going closure to the high tension wire, he caught fire and fell down from the terrace. He was taken to the hospital for treatment. However, he scummed to the injury. A complaint under Crime No.339 of 2009 was registered. Post-mortem report disclosed that his death was due to electric shock. According to the plaintiffs, the accident occurred due to negligence and carelessness of the officials of the Electricity Board as well as the owner of the building, who failed to construct a parapet wall. Due to improper maintenance and failure to provide protective casing, the accident had occurred. 3. The deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and had an expectation of life up to 95 years, the plaintiffs, who are dependents of the deceased are therefore entitled for Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. The Electricity Board filed a written statement stating that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, who had crossed the line without knowing that there is no parapet wall. The HT and LT lines were maintained properly and carefully. The allegation that the department has to maintain the wire, is baseless. The deceased, who in a careless manner contacted the line wire, sustained burn injury. The third defendant, who is the owner of the said building, is responsible for maintaining the building and if at all any liability for the loss of life, the third defendant has to compensate. 4. The third defendant has also filed written statement stating that the building is owned by 20 persons and he holds only a 1/20 th share in the building. He further stated that the building is lying on the extreme southern side of the road. 4. The third defendant has also filed written statement stating that the building is owned by 20 persons and he holds only a 1/20 th share in the building. He further stated that the building is lying on the extreme southern side of the road. At the time of incident, the deceased Ponmudi, who was involved in taking to caller on his mobile phone, had moved on the southern side and seems to have walked freely without noticing the fact that there is no parapet wall on the southern side of the complex building. He got electrocuted and suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital, but died due to injury. The building is owned by 20 persons and therefore, without impleading the others, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 5. The trial Court framed the following Issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of recovery of suit amount as prayed for? (ii) To what other relief? 6. On the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examine and 12 exhibits were marked. On the side of the defendant two witnesses were examined and 3 exhibits were marked. 7. The trial Court, applying the principle of strict liability held that the Electricity Board ought to have provided a protective mechanism to safeguard against contact with the high tension wire. Having failed to provide a protective mechanism, the Electricity Board is liable to pay the compensation. Having held so taking into consideration the age and claim of compensation, the trial Court fixed notional income of Rs.2000/- per month after deducting 1/4 th for personal expenditure, by applying the principle made in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and awarded a sum of Rs.5,08,400/- in total. 8. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed on the ground that the trial Court miserably failed to appreciate the evidence place by the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim. When there is a clear evidence to show that there was no parapet wall in the building, failure to construct the parapet wall is the absolute responsibility of the building owner. Without applying the mind, the trial Court fixed the responsibility on the Electricity Board which has nothing to do with the said accident. The distance between the building and the high tension wire is 5.8 feet. Without applying the mind, the trial Court fixed the responsibility on the Electricity Board which has nothing to do with the said accident. The distance between the building and the high tension wire is 5.8 feet. There is no need or necessity for a person, who is standing in the building, to contact a high tension wire running more than 6 ½ feet away. The witnesses and the written statement of the landlord of the deceased clearly indicates that due to recklessness of the deceased, who was deeply involved in a conversation, he had fallen on the live wire running below without noticing that there is no parapet wall. In the said circumstances, drawing on the principle of strict liability the trial Court has erred holding that the Electricity Board is responsible for the loss of life. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is held by the Apex Court that the electricity wire is dangerous to life and therefore, it is the responsibility of the electricity board to provide necessary protective mechanism and in case of any failure in maintaining the wire, then the Electricity Board is liable. 10. Point for consideration: Whether in a case of this nature, the principle of strict liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher can be applied? 11. The principle of strict liability, which has been liberally interpreted in the cases involving the transportation of hazardous materials, cannot be expanded to the level that even in cases of apparent omission or negligence on the part of the victim or others, the liability of the Board liability is inevitable. 12. In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India reported in [1987(1) SCC395] , which prepounded the theory that where an enterprises is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on any one on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate. This is the case, where the accident had not occurred in connection with the electricity line or its maintenance. A person walking on unbounded open terrace, has fallen on the wire, causing injury, and hit him, which fell within the secure area and earning volenti non fit injuria. If at all any negligence or responsibility to be fixed, it can only be the owner of the building and not the Electricity Board. 13. A person walking on unbounded open terrace, has fallen on the wire, causing injury, and hit him, which fell within the secure area and earning volenti non fit injuria. If at all any negligence or responsibility to be fixed, it can only be the owner of the building and not the Electricity Board. 13. In this case, even the 3 rd defendant cannot be asked to pay compensation, since even after making very clear that the building is owned by 20 persons only one has been arrayed as defendant, thus, for non joinder of necessary party, the plaintiffs have to suffer. 14. In fine, this Court holds that a person, who voluntarily fall on the live wire, cannot ask for compensation from the Electricity Board taking advantage of the liberal interpretation of strict liability. 15. As a result, this Appeal Suit stands allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai in O.S.No.47 of 2022 dated 02.08.2022 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.