The Supreme Court has held that a power utility is not absolutely liable when a person is electrocuted. The correct yardstick is strict liability, liability without any proof of fault, but subject to a recognised set of exceptions, because, as the Court put it, "not in all cases can it be said that the electricity boards are liable."
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in a judgment authored by Justice Karol on 12 August 2026, allowed two appeals by Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTC) and set aside compensation awards made by the Karnataka High Court in writ proceedings.
"We are of the considered view that to impose strict liability would be more appropriate, for not in all cases can it be said that the electricity boards are liable. The transmission of electricity is undoubtedly inherently dangerous. Those who carry out the inherently dangerous activity should bear the burden, and the State is no exception to that rule."
Why it matters. The gap between the two labels decides real cases. Absolute liability admits no defence at all; strict liability still makes a utility pay without proof of negligence, but leaves it room to show that a recognised exception applies, the act of a stranger, the claimant's own default, an act of God, statutory authority. And there is a second, blunter consequence for families: the Court also held that where the facts are genuinely in dispute, a High Court writ petition, the fast constitutional route under Article 226, decided on affidavits rather than a full trial, is the wrong door. Two families who had already won must now start again elsewhere.
A fatal ladder incident and a 66 kV cricket-ball accident
The first case arose from the death of N. Subramanya by electrocution on 22 February 2018. His widow, Rekha, approached the Karnataka High Court against Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. A Single Judge, later affirmed by a Division Bench, treated the claim as one for a tortious act, a civil wrong, by the State, held the writ petition maintainable and awarded Rs.25,52,500, with interest at 6% after three months from the judgment.
The record, however, contained disputes over how an aluminium ladder being used in a coffee plantation came into contact with an 11 kV line. whether negligence lay with the person using it or the plantation owner who supplied it; whether backup relays were functioning and whether responsibility for maintaining that line rested with the Corporation or another electricity entity.
The connected case concerned Muizz Ahmad Shariff, who jumped onto a neighbouring building’s roof to retrieve a cricket ball, came into contact with a 66 kV line and suffered severe injuries. The High Court awarded him Rs.44,32,050. Here too, the parties disputed whether the mandatory four-metre distance between the line and the building had been maintained, the effect of an undertaking given by the building owner, and who bore responsibility for the connection.
Question of law
The Court framed two questions: whether the compensation writs were maintainable despite these factual disputes, and what yardstick courts should use to quantify compensation in electrocution cases.
The Reasoning (Ratio)
1. The Court held that electricity authorities are subject to strict liability in electrocution cases. While liability may arise irrespective of negligence, it remains subject to recognised exceptions, including the act of a stranger, act of God, statutory authority, consent, default of the claimant and remoteness of consequences. Since such exceptions could arise from the disputed facts in the present cases, the Court held that absolute liability could not be applied.
2. The Court reiterated that although Article 226 confers wide jurisdiction, a writ petition is ordinarily not the appropriate remedy where determination of liability requires evidence on disputed questions of fact. Relying on Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das, the Court held that the competing claims regarding negligence, maintenance and the circumstances of electrocution could not properly be determined merely on affidavits. The compensation claims were therefore held not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.
3. The Court further held that the multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution cases. Although Section 57 of the Electricity Act, 2003 recognises liability to pay compensation in specified circumstances, it does not prescribe a method for quantification. Compensation must therefore be determined on the overarching principle of just, reasonable and fair compensation, having regard to the income of the person and other relevant claims.
Judgement
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals and set aside the Single Judge’s and Division Bench’s rulings. The writ awards of Rs.25,52,500 and Rs.44,32,050 are therefore no longer operative, but the Court did not reject the claimants’ entitlement on merits.
Both claimants remain free to pursue the available remedies before the appropriate forum. Any such proceeding must be decided expeditiously, according to law and without being influenced by the Supreme Court’s observations.
The Rs.5 lakh interim compensation ordered during the appeal cannot be recovered and must not influence the amount that may ultimately be awarded. The parties will bear their own costs.