Supreme Court Holds Electricity Utilities Liable Under Strict, Not Absolute, Liability for Electrocution Claims

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha & Ors., 2026 INSC 847, August 12-13, 2026

What happened

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside orders of the Karnataka High Court, both at the Single Judge and Division Bench stages, which had imposed absolute liability on the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited in respect of two electrocution incidents.

What the Court held

The Court held that electricity transmission attracts strict liability, not absolute liability, meaning the recognised exceptions to strict liability, including the claimant’s own default, act of a stranger, statutory authority, act of God, consent, common benefit, and remoteness of consequences, remain available as defences to a utility, relying on Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9. The Court further held that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are not maintainable for compensation claims involving disputed questions of fact, and that the multiplier method used under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be mechanically applied to electrocution compensation claims, relying on Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 15 SCC 1.

What happens to compensation already paid

The Court directed that interim compensation already paid to the claimants was not to be recovered, notwithstanding the setting aside of the absolute liability finding.

Why it matters

The ruling restores the availability of recognised defences to electricity utilities facing electrocution compensation claims, and cautions against the use of writ jurisdiction, as opposed to a suit, to adjudicate compensation claims that turn on disputed facts.

Source: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha & Ors., 2026 INSC 847, decided August 12-13, 2026.

Last Updated on 8 September, 2026