Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026

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?

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. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of fact are involved, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy, and the writ petitioners should instead be directed to approach the civil court.

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 7Specifically in the context of cases of electrocution, whether or not a petition under Article 226 is maintainable, is also in the realm of the well-settled law. In Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani Das[^7], G.T. Nanavati J. made observations directly relevant for us:

Paragraph 8What is been held here is that if questions of fact are disputed, then Article 226 would not be an appropriate remedy in cases of electrocution.

Paragraph 16Having held as above that there are disputed questions of facts involved, we are of the view that the Writ Petition seeking compensation filed by the respondent was not maintainable. While issuing notice, we had stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and by a subsequent order dated 18.12.2025, had ordered the payment of interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The impugned judgment of the Learned Division Bench as also the Single Judge are quashed and set aside. However, the end result here would be of no consequence to the remedy available to the respondent to take recourse to such alternate remedies as are available against the appellant before the concerned forum. As and when filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law, on an expeditious basis, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. It is further clarified that the amount of compensation paid in these proceedings shall not be recovered from the respondents and neither will it influence the total compensation as may be awarded in the appropriate proceedings, should it arrive at such a conclusion.

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

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