Electrocution Deaths Attract Strict Liability On Electricity Boards, Not Absolute Liability: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that electricity authorities can be held strictly liable for deaths or injuries caused by electrocution, but such liability cannot be treated as absolute liability without exceptions.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the concurrent orders of the Single and Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, which had imputed an absolute liability upon the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation for the deaths occurred due to electrocution.

The judgment arose from two electrocution incidents, including the death of a man who came into contact with an 11 KV transmission line and the severe injury suffered by another person after he came into contact with a 66 KV line while attempting to retrieve a cricket ball.

The Court held that liability, rather than absolute liability, is the appropriate standard in electrocution cases.

“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.”, the Court observed.

To recap, in strict liability, the general rule is that when a person collects or brings upon his land anything that is likely to cause mischief and if such thing escapes, then this person is liable for all natural consequences that follow. [See Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330]

Conversely, absolute 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 i.e., M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1868) LR 3 HL 330 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.

“We would therefore hold that where in enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.”, Justice Bhagwati held in Oleum Gas Leak Case.

Writ petitions were filed before the High Court seeking compensation for the death occurred due to electrocution. The High Court, ignoring the disputed question of facts have allowed the writ petitions, granting compensation to the claimants, applying the multiplier method on the lines of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Karol, at the outset, questioned the maintainability of the Writ Petition before the High Court given that there exists a disputed question of fact.

“…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.”, the Court said.

Moreover, the Court faulted the High Court for applying the Motor Vehicle Act's multiplier method, despite the same being inapplicable to the Electricity Act, 2003.

“…the multiplier method cannot be applied to determine compensation in cases of electrocution. Since the calculation paradigm as provided for in connection with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is dependent on the multiplier, the scenario thereunder could not have been applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution cases, as done by the High Court in the impugned judgment. It is a matter of law that the Electricity Act 2003 does not provide for the method to calculate compensation. What it does provide is the liability of the licensee to pay compensation in certain scenarios under Section 57 thereof but does not say anything regarding the method applicable to calculating the same.”, the Court observed.

On the issue of applicability of an absolute liability principle, the Court held otherwise, noting that a strict liability principle would apply in electrocution cases.

“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.”, the Court said.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, granting leave to take recourse to such alternate remedies as are available against the appellant before the concerned forum.

Cause Title: KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS REKHA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 799

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G. Mr. S. Sriranga, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil, AOR Ms. Sumana Naganand, Adv. Ms. Ashwini Ravindra, Adv. Ms. Tanish Manuja, Adv. Mr. Tushar Kanti Mohindoor, Adv. Mr. Pranav Jain, Adv. Ms. Hepsiba Bobin, Adv. Ms. Anaida Khan, Adv. Ms. Astha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarim Naved, Adv. Ms. Maulshree Pathak, AOR Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G., AOR Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Ms. Abhay Singh Yadav, Adv. Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv. Mr. Ritik Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Aditi Prakash, Amicus Curiae