Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Rekha
Background
Two separate electrocution incidents involving Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation (KPTC) were clubbed together. In the first, Rekha's husband died after coming into contact with an 11 KV line while using an aluminium ladder in a coffee plantation. In the second, a person named Muizz Ahmad Shariff was severely injured after climbing onto a neighbouring building's roof to retrieve a cricket ball and touching a 66 KV line. In both cases, the victims/families filed writ petitions (not ordinary civil suits) directly in the Karnataka High Court seeking compensation from KPTC, and both the Single Judge and Division Bench ruled in the claimants' favour, applying Motor Vehicles Act-style compensation methods and treating KPTC's liability as absolute.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that transmission of electricity is an inherently hazardous activity attracting "strict liability" (not "absolute liability"), meaning KPTC is liable regardless of fault, but subject to recognised exceptions such as contributory negligence, act of a stranger, or default of the plaintiff/a third party (here, the building owner failing to maintain a mandated 4-metre clearance, or the deceased's own use of a conductive ladder near a live line). Because genuine, substantial factual disputes existed in both cases, bearing directly on whether these exceptions applied, the writ courts should not have entertained the matters at all, since Article 226 proceedings are unsuited to resolving contested facts requiring oral evidence. The Court also held that the Motor Vehicles Act's multiplier formula cannot be mechanically applied to electrocution compensation, since the Electricity Act prescribes no compensation formula, though some MV Act principles may still guide "just compensation" more broadly. Both High Court judgments were set aside, and the claimants were left free to pursue proper remedies (i.e., civil suits) before the appropriate forum, with any interim compensation already paid not to be recovered or treated as prejudicing the final outcome. Justice Kotiswar Singh wrote a concurring opinion elaborating on when disputed facts should oust writ jurisdiction and reaffirming the strict-liability (not absolute-liability) standard.
Lesson Learnt
Electricity boards are strictly liable for electrocution harm from their transmission activity, but this liability admits exceptions (like the victim's own negligence or a third party's default), and where such factual disputes exist, victims/families should pursue compensation through an ordinary civil suit rather than a writ petition, since writ courts are not equipped to resolve contested facts.