Case at a Glance
A man lost his left hand after allegedly touching a live wire near a transformer in Bangarpet, Kolar district, in June 2015. BESCOM paid him ₹1,20,000 under an administrative circular, and a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court then awarded ₹27,88,925 in a writ petition using the Motor Vehicles Act method. A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru allowed BESCOM’s appeal, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha. It held that liability is strict, not absolute, that disputed facts on liability cannot be settled in a writ, and left the victim free to sue in a civil court or other competent forum.
On 9 June 2015 Sri Govindappa allegedly came into contact with a live wire near a transformer on private property in Bangarpet, Kolar district. His left hand had to be amputated. After earlier rounds of writ litigation, BESCOM sanctioned ₹1,20,000 to him under an administrative memorandum dated 29 February 2024. He wanted ₹32,00,000, calculated on Motor Vehicles Act principles, and filed W.P. No. 11558 of 2024.
On 12 February 2025 a Single Judge allowed the petition. Taking a notional monthly income of ₹9,000 under the legal services authority guidelines for 2015 accidents, an 80% functional disability, 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 15, the Single Judge awarded ₹27,88,925 (including ₹18,14,400 for loss of future earnings, ₹4,45,525 for medical expenses and ₹2,00,000 each for pain and suffering and loss of amenities) with 6% interest from the date of the writ petition, less amounts already paid. BESCOM appealed, arguing that limitation, the circumstances of the accident and possible contributory conduct needed evidence, that the ex-gratia payment was not an admission, and that its officials had been acquitted in the criminal case.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226, fix liability and calculate compensation for an electrocution injury using the Motor Vehicles Act multiplier method, when the facts on liability are disputed?
Strict Liability After Rekha, and the Limits of Writ Jurisdiction
Writing for the Bench, Justice K.S. Hemalekha traced the three standards of liability — negligence, strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher, and absolute liability under M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1986) 12 SC CK 0033 — and noted M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, (2002) 01 SC CK 0088, which treats electricity supply as inherently dangerous. The Court then held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha (2026 INSC 847) “directly governs the legal questions arising in the present appeal”. Under Rekha, the standard is “that of strict liability, subject to the recognized exceptions and not absolute liability”. Following Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., the Bench held that the Motor Vehicles Act methodology “cannot be mechanically imported into claims involving electrical accident”.
Relying on Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das, (1999) 09 SC CK 0014 and S.D.O., Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram, (2005) 07 SC CK 0014, the Court held that where facts going to liability are disputed, “the remedy of a writ petition under Article 226 would ordinarily be inappropriate”, and so “the learned Single Judge was not justified in determining compensation”. The ₹1,20,000 sanctioned under the circular “cannot, without more, be equated with an unequivocal admission of liability in tort”. At the same time, the officials’ “acquittal in criminal proceedings does not by itself establish that the BESCOM is free from civil liability.” The Court added that sympathy for the injured person, however justified, cannot substitute the legal requirements.
What the Court Actually Held
- Liability of an electricity utility for electrocution is strict, subject to recognised exceptions, and not absolute, as laid down in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha.
- The Motor Vehicles Act multiplier method cannot be mechanically applied to compensation for electrical accidents.
- Where liability depends on disputed facts, a writ court should ordinarily not decide liability and quantum; an ex-gratia payment under a circular is not an admission of tortious liability, and an acquittal of officials does not decide civil liability either way.
- The writ appeal was allowed, the Single Judge’s order of 12 February 2025 set aside and the writ petition dismissed, with liberty to the injured man to approach the competent civil court or forum, all contentions kept open and no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It applies the Supreme Court’s Rekha ruling at the High Court level and will shape how electrocution victims in Karnataka frame their claims.
- It signals that writ petitions are not the route to large compensation awards when the utility disputes how the accident happened.
- It clarifies that accepting ex-gratia money from a power company does not, by itself, prove the company’s liability.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Victims and Families
- If the utility disputes the facts, be prepared to prove the accident in a civil suit with evidence, not just a writ petition.
- Ex-gratia payments can usually be accepted, but they are not proof that the utility admitted fault.
- Act quickly; the Court noted that limitation and contributory conduct are matters for evidence.
For Counsel
- Plead strict liability in the Rekha framework and anticipate the recognised exceptions the utility will invoke.
- Do not base quantum solely on the MV Act multiplier; the Bench followed Raman in rejecting mechanical import.
- Reserve writ jurisdiction for cases where liability is undisputed or admitted on record.
Key Takeaways
- Electricity utilities face strict, not absolute, liability for electrocution.
- Disputed liability is for the civil court, not the writ court.
- Ex-gratia payment under a circular is not an admission of liability.
- The victim keeps the right to sue; the High Court expressly kept all contentions open.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the High Court say the victim gets nothing?
No. It set aside the writ award but gave him liberty to approach the competent civil court or forum for compensation for the 9 June 2015 accident, keeping all contentions open and directing that the forum decide independently.
What is the difference between strict and absolute liability here?
Under strict liability, recognised exceptions can be raised by the utility; under absolute liability no exception is allowed. Following Rekha, the Court applied strict liability.
Does accepting ex-gratia money weaken a claim?
The Court only held that the payment is not, without more, an unequivocal admission of liability. It did not say the payment bars a later claim.
Conclusion
This Division Bench ruling is a direct consequence of the Supreme Court’s Rekha decision: the generous writ-court approach of awarding MV-Act-style compensation for electrocution is replaced by a requirement to prove the claim before a competent forum when the utility disputes the facts.
Practical takeaway: In electrocution injury cases where liability is contested, file a properly pleaded civil suit with evidence; a writ petition is likely to be dismissed with liberty, costing years.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com