The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that enterprises or departments engaged in hazardous activities cannot claim immunity from granting compensation on the ground that accident occurred due to negligence of the injured or deceased individuals. The Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rahul Bharti observed, “The plea that the accident happened due to the negligence of the injured or deceased, as the case may be, is not available to such enterprise or department engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity”. While adjudicating a Letter Patent Appeal concerning an issue regarding entitlement to compensation of an individual who died due to electrocution in 2003, the Bench upheld the compensation awarded by the High Court but revised the amount allocated for loss of consortium. On 5th March 2003, Mr. Raghuvir Singh (Deceased) lost his life after coming into contact with a live and exposed electric transformer. The subsequent legal battle involved the deceased's family seeking compensation from the then State of Jammu & Kashmir (now UT of Jammu & Kashmir) and others, claiming negligence on the part of the concerned department responsible for maintaining the transformer. The Appellants, dissatisfied with the verdict, challenged it on multiple grounds. They contended that the High Court allowed the writ petition and granted compensation to the Respondents/Claimants without returning a specific finding as to the negligence of the Appellant-department. They argued that the incident of electrocution happened due to the negligence of the deceased who had strayed into the live electric transformer kept away from the road at a secured place. Moreover, the Appellants raised an issue concerning the computation of compensation. The Court held that the hazardous and inherently dangerous nature of the activity engaged in by the Department of Power Development, namely, electricity transmission, demands a higher level of care and caution. In such inherently dangerous activities, the enterprise or department involved is strictly liable for any harm caused due to an accident, irrespective of the negligence of the injured party. In the Enquiry Report, it was evident that the Appellant-department had not put up any signboard or marking in front of the transformer to caution the people to stay away. The transformer was not properly fenced and, therefore, posed a serious threat to the life of citizens living around it. While placing reliance on M.C. Mehta and others v. Union of India, 1987 (1) SCC, it was observed that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities bear absolute liability for accidents resulting from their operations and the Court absolves them from claiming contributory negligence on the part of the victim.