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?

No, not by itself, though ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained where an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; the existence of an alternate remedy is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion, and does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 in an appropriate case — the decisive question in each case remains whether disputed questions of fact are involved.

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)

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.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India