Supreme Court: The appeals arose from Karnataka High Court judgments awarding compensation to victims of electrocution, with the High Court treating the liability as absolute and adopting the multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) for quantifying compensation. While examining the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226, Constitution of India in cases of electrocution and clarifies the nature of liability imposed on electricity authorities, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., held that an electrocution claim against a State electricity authority attracts strict liability, not absolute liability. Further, where material facts are disputed, the appropriate remedy ordinarily lies before the competent adjudicatory forum and not before High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that compensation in electrocution cases must be assessed on the basis of “just and reasonable, fair compensation”, rather than by mechanically applying the multiplier method prescribed under the MV Act.
However, the Court found that the present cases involved substantial disputed questions of fact, making the writ jurisdiction inappropriate. Accordingly, the Court allowed both appeals, quashed and set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, holding that the writ petitions seeking compensation were not maintainable because of the disputed questions of fact.
Factual Matrix
The instant appeals arose from judgments of the High Court of Karnataka which had directed Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTC) to pay compensation in cases involving electrocution.
In the first matter, the widow of the deceased, approached the High Court after her husband died from electrocution on 22 February 2018. An FIR was registered on the same day. The writ petition was opposed by KPTC, principally on the grounds that the petition was not maintainable, that there was no fault on its part, and that the matter involved disputed questions of fact.
The Single Judge rejected these objections and held that the writ petition was maintainable. The Division Bench subsequently affirmed that conclusion. Both courts treated the matter as one involving tortious liability of the State and awarded ₹25,52,500, with interest at 6% after 3 months from the date of judgment. In calculating compensation, the High Court adopted the framework provided in the MV Act.
The second appeal concerned with the deceased, who had jumped onto the roof of a neighbouring building to retrieve a cricket ball. While doing so, he came into contact with a 66 KV electricity line and suffered severe injuries. The Single Judge awarded ₹44,32,050 as compensation and the Division Bench upheld the award.
Issues for Consideration
-
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for claiming compensation arising from electrocution where disputed questions of fact exist?
-
Whether electricity authorities are subject to strict liability or absolute liability in electrocution cases?
-
Whether the exceptions recognised under the doctrine of strict liability remain available to electricity authorities?
-
Whether the multiplier method under the MV Act, can be applied for determining compensation in electrocution cases?
-
What effect should be given to compensation already paid during the pendency of the proceedings?
Analysis
Maintainability of a Writ Petition Under Article 226
The Court reiterated that the existence of an alternative remedy does not, by itself, completely oust the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226. However, where the controversy involves disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and detailed adjudication, the writ jurisdiction may appropriately be declined.
The Court relied on Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771, wherein it was held that “in cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition.”
The Court placed particular reliance upon Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) v. Sukamani Das, (1999) 7 SCC 298, which directly concerned electrocution claims. In that case, the Court had cautioned that merely because death occurred after contact with a snapped electric wire, compensation could not automatically be awarded. The claimant was required to establish negligence where the claim was founded upon tortious liability. The circumstances in which the wire snapped, the precautions taken by the electricity authority and the circumstances in which the deceased came into contact with the wire were matters requiring examination.
Therefore, the Court in the present case applied the same principle and reaffirmed that where disputed questions of fact are involved, a petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not the appropriate remedy in an electrocution case.
Strict liability versus absolute liability
The Court carefully distinguished absolute liability from strict liability. The Court stated that absolute liability “leaves no scope for exception from such liability”. The Court explained that it is principally associated with enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities and arises from the special principle formulated in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram – Oleum Gas), (1987) 1 SCC 395.
The Court then examined the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330 and noted that strict liability focuses upon the nature of the activity rather than merely the manner in which it was carried out. The Court also relied on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, wherein strict liability was described as requiring undertakers of hazardous activities to compensate for damage caused by those activities irrespective of fault. The judgment also recognised electricity among the things capable of falling within the rule.
The Court referred to M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162, where it was recognised that persons undertaking activities involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life may be liable even without negligence. The Court emphasised that the basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of the activity.
However, the Court noted that strict liability is not absolute and referred to the recognised exceptions stated in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (2001) 2 SCC 9, as follows:
-
Consent of the plaintiff — volenti non fit injuria;
-
Common benefit;
-
Act of a stranger;
-
Exercise of statutory authority;
-
Act of God or vis major;
-
Default of the plaintiff; and
-
Remoteness of consequences.
In cases such as these i.e. electrocution of an individual, the Court found strict liability to be the appropriate standard and stated that “the transmission of electricity is undoubtedly inherently dangerous”. It further held that “those who carry out the inherently dangerous activity should bear the burden, and the State is no exception to that rule”.
Thus, the Court held that an electricity authority can be required to compensate an injured person or the dependants of a deceased person irrespective of fault, but only where none of the established exceptions to strict liability applies.
Yardstick of Compensation
The Court held the High Court’s adoption of the multiplier method under the MV Act was legally unsustainable. Relying on Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 15 SCC 1, the Court stated that the multiplier method cannot simply be imported into electrocution cases. The Electricity Act, 2003 provides for liability in specified circumstances, including under Section 57, but does not prescribe a method for calculating compensation. Therefore, compensation must be determined according to the broader principle of “just and reasonable, fair compensation” as well, based on the income of the person and other related claims.
Decision
The Court allowed both appeals, holding that the writ petitions seeking compensation were not maintainable because the cases involved substantial disputed questions of fact. Therefore, the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench were quashed and set aside.
At the same time, the Court did not foreclose the respondents’ substantive claims. They remained free to pursue the alternate remedies available before the appropriate forum, where their claims would have to be decided in accordance with law.
The Court further held that the proper standard applicable to electrocution cases is strict liability, rather than absolute liability, subject to the recognised exceptions to the rule of strict liability.
The Court also rejected the High Court’s use of the multiplier method under MV Act for calculating compensation in electrocution cases and held that compensation must instead be determined on the basis of the overarching requirement of “just and reasonable, fair compensation”, taking into account the income of the deceased or injured person and other relevant claims.
The Court clarified that the ₹5 lakh interim compensation already paid pursuant to the Court’s order dated 18 December 2025 would not be recovered from the respondents. Further, the interim amount would not prejudice or reduce any compensation that might ultimately be awarded by the competent forum and directed that the parties would bear their own costs.
[Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. v. Rekha, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1545, decided on 12-8-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Ms. Srishti Govil, AOR, Ms. Sumana Naganand, Adv., Ms. Ashwini Ravindra, Adv., Mr. Pranav Jain, Adv., Ms. Hepsiba Bobin, Adv., Mr. Tanish Manuja, Adv., Ms. Anaida Khan, Adv., Mr. Tushar Mohindroo, Adv., Mr. Tushar Mahindroo, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. V.C. Shukla, Adv., Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G., AOR, Mr. Gaanesh Kamath, Adv., Mr. Ramprasad H Alva B, Adv., Mr. Prabhsimar Singh, Adv., Mr. Sarim Naved, Adv., Ms. Maulshree Pathak, AOR, Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Adv., Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad, Adv., Mr. Mohd Noumaan, Adv., Ms. Aditi Prakash, Amicus Curaie, Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR, Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv., Ms. Abhay Singh Yadav, Adv., Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR, Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR, Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv., Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv., Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv., Mr. Ritik Sharma, Adv.