Supreme Court: Electricity boards face strict, not absolute, liability for electrocution; writ petitions unsuitable where facts are disputed

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of judgment: 12 August 2026
Case: 2026 INSC 847
Parties: KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs REKHA & ORS
Bench: SANJAY KAROL
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed

Summary

Two electrocution victims' claimants had won compensation of about Rs 25.5 lakh and Rs 44.3 lakh from the Karnataka High Court against the state power transmission company, which treated its liability as absolute and ignored disputed facts. The Supreme Court held that such cases involve strict liability, which has recognised exceptions, and that a writ petition is not the right remedy when negligence and other facts are genuinely disputed.

What the court held

The Court set aside the High Court's single-judge and division bench orders, holding the writ petitions not maintainable because of disputed facts. Liability of bodies like the appellant is strict, subject to the recognised exceptions, and the Motor Vehicles Act multiplier method cannot be applied; compensation must be just, reasonable and fair. Interim compensation of Rs 5 lakh already paid is not to be recovered, and the claimants may pursue other available remedies, which are to be decided expeditiously without being influenced by this judgment.

Key issues

Is a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable for compensation in electrocution cases where facts are disputed?
Is the liability of electricity bodies strict or absolute?
What yardstick applies to compensation in electrocution cases?

Provisions referred to

Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Section 57, Electricity Act, 2003
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: Supreme Court of India. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Electricity Law Tort Writ Jurisdiction Compensation Strict Liability

Related judgments

AP High Court ·28 Sep 2026 ·Motor Accident Claims

AP High Court: Lorry owner stays liable as insurance began after the accident, but compensation raised to Rs 4.36 lakh

A lorry owner appealed against a tribunal award for the death of an 18-year-old cyclist, arguing his insurance premium was paid on the day of the accident. The High Court found the policy was taken after the accident, so the owner remains liable, but it increased the compensation on its own after finding the tribunal had calculated it wrongly.

Dismissed MACMA/2481/2012