Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026
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?
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
Answer
Strict liability. Absolute liability is applied only to enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous or hazardous industrial activity and leaves no scope for exception; in cases of electrocution it is more appropriate to impose strict liability, which renders the electricity board liable to compensate irrespective of fault, subject to the recognised exceptions to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
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 10The High Court had, in effect, held the disputed facts to not be of much relevance because, according to it, it is the standard of absolute liability that is applicable and not strict liability. Since absolute liability obviously has no exceptions, the presence of disputed facts, if at all, would not absolve the appellant herein. In deciding the correctness of this finding, we must then go to the meaning of absolute liability and strict liability.
Paragraph 11Absolute liability, as the name itself suggests, is a kind of liability that leaves no scope for exception from such liability. To put it simply, the person who has been deemed to be absolutely liable shall be so liable irrespective of the facts and circumstances in which such imputation has been made upon them. It is applied only to enterprises and comes into play when the activity in which the enterprise is engaged, is inherently dangerous or hazardous and someone has been harmed as a result of the accident that has taken place in performing such activity. The classic case in this regard is the Constitution Bench decision in Oleum Gas Leak Case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram - Oleum Gas)[^8] where an industrial unit of Shriram Foods and Fertilisers, located in Delhi, suffered a leak of Oleum Gas leading to danger to the lives of the people in the area. Bhagwati C.J. held thus:
Paragraph 14Now the question is whether in cases such as these i.e. electrocution of an individual, the standard of liability upon bodies such as the appellant is strict or absolute. 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. Such enterprises operate on a loss distribution mechanism i.e. they are in the best position to spread the loss incurred through insurance or higher prices, as the case may be. It can also be said that they are expected to factor in these possibilities. It is for these reasons that they are liable to compensate the injured/deceased irrespective of any fault on their part, provided that none of the exceptions to the rule of strict liability apply to the case at hand. Granted that they would have taken all reasonable care to protect individuals from electrocution. We are supported in this view by the observations made in Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, where it has been categorically held that the rule in Rylands (supra) applies to a number of different categories of cases inter alia, electricity also.
Acts & Sections
Article 226 Constitution of IndiaMotor Vehicles Act, 1988s.57 Electricity Act, 2003One 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 accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →