Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Rekha: Supreme Court rejects writ compensation claim

Ratio / rule laid down

Transmission of electricity is an inherently dangerous activity attracting strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, including against State and public utility bodies, but not absolute liability: the recognised exceptions remain available. Article 226 is not an appropriate forum for electrocution compensation claims requiring resolution of disputed facts, and the MVA multiplier cannot be applied mutatis mutandis.

Why this matters for lawyers

• A writ petition is vulnerable at the threshold where the pleadings raise disputes about the accident’s manner, statutory clearances, maintenance responsibility, third-party intervention, the claimant’s conduct, or the applicable distribution licensee. The appropriate civil or other available remedy should ordinarily be pursued.
• Electricity authorities cannot defeat liability merely by showing that reasonable care was taken. The governing standard is strict liability, but advocates should specifically plead and prove any applicable exception, including act of stranger, act of God, statutory authority, plaintiff’s default, or remoteness.
• Do not import the multiplier method from motor accident claims without authority. The claim should be presented through evidence of income and other related heads, directed to just, reasonable and fair compensation.
• The Court preserved the Rs. 5 lakh interim compensation already paid: it is not recoverable and will not be set off against any eventual award in appropriate proceedings.

Facts

Rekha, widow of N. Subramanya, approached the Karnataka High Court after his death by electrocution on 22 February 2018. The Single Judge and Division Bench rejected Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited’s objections on maintainability, fault and disputed facts, and awarded Rs. 25,52,500/- with 6% interest after three months from the judgment, using the Motor Vehicles Act framework.

The connected appeal concerned Muizz Ahmad Shariff, who was severely injured after jumping onto a neighbouring building’s roof to retrieve a cricket ball and coming into contact with a 66KV Line. The High Court had upheld an award of Rs. 44,32,050/-.

Issues

• Whether Article 226 could be used to determine electrocution compensation despite disputed questions concerning negligence, maintenance, statutory distances, responsibility for the line and possible third-party or claimant conduct.
• Whether the electricity authority’s liability was absolute liability, as the High Court held, or strict liability subject to the exceptions to Rylands v. Fletcher.
• Whether the multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 could be applied to quantify compensation.

Court's Reasoning

On maintainability, the Court applied the settled Article 226 principles in Radha Krishan Industries and T.N. Cements Corpn. Ltd. v. Unicon Engineers: alternate remedy is not an inflexible bar, but disputed facts ordinarily warrant declining writ jurisdiction. Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani Das was directly applicable. A snapped live wire, by itself, does not establish negligence or liability; the authority must have an opportunity to prove maintenance, precautions, causation and possible third-party intervention. The Court therefore held that the disputed factual issues could not properly be resolved on affidavits.

The Court then rejected the High Court’s distinction between absolute and strict liability. Absolute liability excludes every exception and is associated with hazardous enterprises in the Oleum Gas Leak Case. Electrocution cases involving electricity boards, however, attract strict liability. Electricity transmission is inherently dangerous; the undertaking is best placed to distribute the resulting loss through insurance or pricing, and liability follows irrespective of fault where no Rylands exception applies. The State is not exempt merely because the activity is a public utility. The Court specifically relied on the reasoning in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and the recognition that the Rylands rule extends to electricity.

On quantification, Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. was followed in substance: the multiplier method cannot be transplanted from motor accident claims because the statutory compensation scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is multiplier-based, whereas the Electricity Act 2003 provides no comparable calculation method. Section 57 addresses liability to pay compensation in specified situations but does not prescribe the method. The controlling standard remains just and reasonable, fair compensation, assessed with reference to income and other related claims.

Key Takeaways

• Disputed questions of fact ordinarily make an electrocution compensation claim not maintainable under Article 226.
• Electricity authorities are subject to strict, not absolute, liability; proof of reasonable care alone is not a complete defence.
• Rylands exceptions remain legally material, including an unforeseeable act of a stranger, act of God, statutory authority and the claimant’s own default.
• The MVA multiplier method cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution claims.
• Interim relief may be protected without determining the final liability or prejudicing proceedings before the competent forum.

What Remains Unresolved

The judgment does not determine the underlying factual liability in either appeal. The respondents remain free to pursue the available alternative remedies, where the disputed issues and the final quantum are to be decided independently and expeditiously, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations.

Precedents discussed

• Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P[2021] 3 SCR 406 : (2021) 6 SCC 771Referred to

  Article 226 principles on alternate remedy and disputed facts

• T.N. Cements Corpn. Ltd. v. Unicon Engineers(2025) 4 SCC 1Referred to

  approved contingencies for exercising writ jurisdiction

• Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani Das[1999] Supp. 2 SCR 458 : (1999) 7 SCC 298Referred to

  electrocution disputes and the inappropriateness of writ adjudication

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram-Oleum Gas)[1987] 1 SCR 819 : (1987) 1 SCC 395Referred to

  distinction between absolute and strict liability

• M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari[2002] 1 SCR 164 : (2002) 2 SCC 162Referred to

  strict liability in electrocution claims

• Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.[2014] 13 SCR 842 : (2014) 15 SCC 1Referred to

  multiplier method unavailable for electrocution compensation

Source judgment: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Rekha & Ors. · Bench: Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh