The distribution of electricity is an inherently dangerous activity attracting absolute liability, holding the supply authority responsible for maintaining safety and preventing accidents, regardless of claims of contributory negligence unless proven by substantial evidence.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 53 and 68 - Electrocution death - Liability of electricity distribution company - Absolute/Strict liability - Scope of PIL - Permanent Lok Adalat apportioned liability at 80% on the corporation and 20% on the deceased - Petitioner challenged the apportionment seeking 50:50 distribution - Court held that electricity supply is an inherently dangerous activity, invoking the principle of absolute liability - Distribution companies have a statutory duty to maintain safety measures - No evidence was led by the petitioners to justify a higher contribution of negligence by the deceased - Impugned award upheld. (Paras 12, 13, 15)

Facts of the case:
The deceased was electrocuted while operating an electric motor pump for irrigation purposes due to a leaking electric line. A claim petition under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was filed. The Permanent Lok Adalat awarded compensation, apportioning 80% liability to the electricity corporation and 20% to the deceased, which the petitioners challenged in this writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The court sustained the 80:20 liability apportionment, ruling that the electricity supplier has a primary responsibility for maintenance and safety under the Electricity Act, 2003, and that strict liability applies to hazardous activities like electricity distribution.

Issues: Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat erred in fixing the liability for the death due to electrocution at 80% upon the electricity corporation.

Ratio Decidendi: The entity engaged in the distribution of electricity—an inherently dangerous activity—is subject to the principle of absolute liability; therefore, they are responsible for ensuring safety measures, and claims of contributory negligence by the victim require substantial evidence which was lacking in this instance.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case involving fatal electrocution and claims under the legal services authorities act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. procedural history of the claim petition and the initial award by the permanent lok adalat. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. the court's assessment of negligence and evidence regarding maintenance of electric lines. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. application of absolute liability principles for hazardous activities like electricity distribution. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. conclusion and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 16)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 28.08.2025 AND 01.09.2025 RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALTH, BELAGAVI, IN O.P. NO. 46/2024 (PLD NO. 52/2023) (ANNEXURE-G AND G1) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. The petitioners, aggrieved by the portion of the judgment and award dated 28.08.2025 and 01.09.2025 respectively passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Belagavi in O.P.No.46/2024 (PLD No.52/2023) vide Annexures G and G1, this writ petition.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

Deceased Sri Adiveppa Basavaraj Shigiholi was cultivating the land at Panjanatti, Gokak, Belagavi through an Electric pump set installed in the land for irrigating the said land. While carrying out agricultural work, he came in contact with an electric line on 16.08.2022 as there was a leakage in the electricity line on the pole and the said Adiveppa sustained the injuries in the said accident and succumbed to his injuries. There is negligence and latches on the part of the petitioner-Corporation in maintaining the electricity line. A complaint was registered in Ankalagi Police Station under U.D.No.13/2022 dated 17.08.2022. The respondents being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, for grant of compensation. Accordingly, claim petition was allowed.

3. The petitioners filed a statement of objections denying the averments in the claim petition and contended that the said incident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and there was no negligence on the part of the officials of the corporation. Hence, they pray to dismiss the claim petition. However, conciliation was held on 29.07.2024. The parties did not agree to an amicable settlement.

4. The Permanent Lok Adalat based on the rival pleadings of the parties framed the issues.

1) Whether the petitioners prove that on 16.08.2022, around 6.00 a.m. when the deceased Adiveppa Basavaraj Shigiholi went to irrigate the sugarcane crops grown in his land, situated at Panjanatti village, Tq: Gokak, while starting electric motor pump, due to leakage of electricity, he died on the spot due to electrocution?

2) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased died due to the negligence on the part of the respondents?

3) Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled for any compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

4) What Award Order?

5. The respondents, in order to substantiate their case, respondent No.1 was examined as PW.1 and marked 14 documents as Ex.P1 to P14. The Section Officer, Ankalagi of the petitioner-Corporation was examined as RW.1 and marked 02 documents as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. The Electrical Inspector was examined as RW.2 and marked 06 documents as Ex.R3 to Ex.R9.

6. The Permanent Lok Adalat, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issues No.1 to 3 in the partly affirmative, issue No.4 as per the final order. The claim petition was allowed in part and awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,18,400/- and held that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19002

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAshok S. Kinagi, JManaging Director, Hescom Corporate Office – AppellantVersusShobha – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO. 101461 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

The distribution of electricity is an inherently dangerous activity attracting absolute liability, holding the supply authority responsible for maintaining safety and preventing accidents, regardless of claims of contributory negligence unless proven by substantial evidence.

Cases Referred (1)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ashok S. Kinagi, J
Managing Director, Hescom Corporate Office – Appellant
Versus
Shobha – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 101461 OF 2026 (GM-RES)