LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026

Can the multiplier method prescribed for computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 be applied to determine compensation in cases of electrocution?

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED v. REKHA & ORS
2026 INSC 847 · writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995
Coram: Sanjay Karol; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Article 226 Constitution of India📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. The multiplier method cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution cases; since the Electricity Act, 2003 does not itself provide for any method of calculating such compensation, the overarching principle of just, reasonable and fair compensation, based on the income of the person and other related claims, governs the calculation instead.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Maintainability — Disputed questions of fact — Electrocution — Strict liability — Absolute liability — Compensation, yardstick — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Multiplier method — Constitution of India — Article 226 — Disputed questions of fact — Not a proper remedy — Held: Where questions of fact are disputed, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy in cases of electrocution; since the record revealed several facts to be disputed regarding negligence, contributory negligence and the extent of the appellant's maintenance responsibility, the writ petitions seeking compensation were not maintainable and the impugned judgments of the Learned Division Bench and the Single Judge were quashed and set aside. (¶7, 8, 9, 16) Strict liability — Absolute liability distinguished — Electrocution — Held further: Absolute liability, being a kind of liability that leaves no scope for exception, is applied only to enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous or hazardous activity in the mould of the Oleum Gas Leak Case; in cases of electrocution, however, it is the standard of strict liability, admitting of the recognised exceptions, that is more appropriate, since the electricity boards are liable to compensate irrespective of fault, being in the best position to spread the loss through insurance or higher prices, but subject to exceptions such as an act of the plaintiff himself or of a stranger. (¶10, 11, 12, 14) Compensation, yardstick — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Multiplier method not applicable — Held further: The multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to determine compensation in cases of electrocution, since the Electricity Act, 2003 does not itself provide for the method of calculating such compensation; the overarching principle of just, reasonable and fair compensation, based on the income of the person and other related claims, governs the calculation instead. (¶15)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 15On the question of yardstick of compensation, we find this Court to have observed in a two-Judge Bench decision in Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.[^15], that the multiplier method cannot be applied to determine compensation in cases of electrocution. Since the calculation paradigm as provided for in connection with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is dependent on the multiplier, the scenario thereunder could not have been applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution cases, as done by the High Court in the impugned judgment. It is a matter of law that the Electricity Act 2003 does not provide for the method to calculate compensation. What it does provide is the liability of the licensee to pay compensation in certain scenarios under Section 57 thereof but does not say anything regarding the method applicable to calculating the same. This holding in Raman (supra) relies on Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha[^16]. Be that as it may, the overarching principle of just and reasonable, fair compensation would govern the calculation here as well, based on the income of the person and other related claims.
Acts & Sections
Article 226 Constitution of IndiaMotor Vehicles Act, 1988s.57 Electricity Act, 2003

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED v. REKHA & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Where disputed questions of fact regarding negligence are involved in a claim for compensation arising from electrocution, is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution a proper remedy?In cases of electrocution, is the standard of liability applicable to an electricity board absolute liability, on the analogy of the Oleum Gas Leak Case, or strict liability admitting of recognised exceptions?Does an alternate statutory or civil remedy, by itself, divest the High Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition for compensation arising from a tortious act of the State?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections