Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 923

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Rekha & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 10659 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 24849 of 2025) With
Civil Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 24854 of 2025)
Decided On : 12-08-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): 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 Respondent(s): 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.

In electrocution cases, writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable if there are disputed questions of fact. The liability of electricity transmission corporations is strict liability (not absolute), subject to exceptions. Compensation must be just and reasonable, not based on Motor Vehicles Act multiplier.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability of writ petition - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 57 - Liability of licensee - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Multiplier method not applicable for compensation in electrocution cases.

(B) Torts - Strict liability vs Absolute liability - Electrocution by transmission lines - Liability of electricity transmission corporations - Standard is strict liability, not absolute liability - Exceptions to strict liability apply: volenti non fit injuria, common benefit, act of stranger, statutory authority, act of God, default of plaintiff, remoteness. (Paras 12-14)

(C) Practice and Procedure - Writ jurisdiction - Disputed questions of fact - High Court should not entertain writ petition for compensation in tort when factual disputes exist - Remedy lies in civil suit.

Facts of the case:
Two appeals arising from writ petitions claiming compensation for death/injury due to electrocution. First appeal: Death of a person who came in contact with an 11 KV line while using an aluminium ladder in a coffee plantation. Second appeal: Injury to a person who touched a 66 KV line while retrieving a cricket ball from a rooftop. The High Court allowed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act framework. The appellant (State Power Transmission Corporation) challenged maintainability and liability.

Findings of Court:
The writ petitions were not maintainable due to disputed questions of fact, including issues of negligence, compliance with safety norms, and the role of third parties. The standard of liability for electricity transmission is strict liability, not absolute liability, and exceptions are available. The multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be applied; compensation must be just and reasonable. The impugned judgments were set aside, but the respondents may approach the civil court. Interim compensation already paid shall not be recovered.

Issues: (i) Whether writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for electrocution claims when facts are disputed. (ii) Whether the standard of liability is absolute or strict. (iii) What is the appropriate method for computing compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: When there are disputed questions of fact, a writ petition is not maintainable; the appropriate forum is the civil court. The liability of an electricity transmission corporation is strict liability, subject to recognized exceptions, and not absolute liability. Compensation in electrocution cases is to be determined on the principle of just and reasonable compensation, not by the multiplier under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Result: Appeals allowed. Impugned judgments set aside. Respondents at liberty to pursue alternate remedies. Interim compensation not recoverable. No order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. background and procedural history of the electrocution appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. maintainability of writ petitions under article 226 when disputed facts exist. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. strict liability rather than absolute liability applies to electrocution cases. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. compensation in electrocution cases determined by just and reasonable principle, not multiplier method. (Para 15)
5. writ petitions held not maintainable; appeals allowed with liberty to pursue alternate remedies. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation¹[KPTC] challenges the imputation of liability upon itself, and the consequent order to pay compensation made by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru²[In WP No. 1383 of 2020] and its subsequent confirmation by a Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeals preferred thereagainst³[WA No. 861 of 2022].

3. It has to be noted, right at the outset, that the impugned judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of three appeals out of which the KPTC has chosen to file the present appeal against only two of the three. In the present case, respondent No. 1, namely Rekha, is the widow of one N. Subramanya who died due to an incident of electrocution on 22 February 2018. A first information report was registered the same day, setting into motion the law, the outcome thereof is not part of the record. Apparently, the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition, the subject matter of these appeals. The Appellant herein opposed the petitions on the ground of inter alia maintainability; lack of fault on the part of the Appellant; and the presence of disputed questions of fact. Rejecting these objections, both the learned single Judge and Division Bench held the writ petitions to be maintainable since what was sought by the writ petitioners is a remedy for tortious act of the State and such a prayer not requiring exhausting of private law remedy before the Civil Court. On merits the court held the appellant liable, to grant compensation for which the framework of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988⁴[MVA] was adopted. Both the Courts awarded Rs. 25,52,500/- with interest payable at the rate of 6% after three months of the date of judgment.

4. In Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 24854 of 2025, the facts in brief were that the Respondent therein, namely Muizz Ahmad Shariff, had jumped onto the roof of a neighboring building to retrieve a cricket ball, when in the process of doing so, he came in contact with a 66KV Line and was severely injured. The learned Single Judge awarded Rs. 44,32,050/- which was upheld by the Division Bench.

5. The questions to be decided by us are the maintainability of the writ petition and the yardstick that is to be used in determining compensation in cases of electrocution. We have heard the learned Solicitor General, learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.

6. The question of maintainability of the writ petition is no longer res-integra. Numerous judgments of this Court have delineated on this question. We may refer to one such judgment where the principles regarding maintainability have been culled out. In Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771, it has been observed:

27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.

27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.

27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 923

Cases Referred (12)