Supreme Court: Strict, Not Absolute Liability Applies To Electricity Boards In Electrocution Cases

The case concerns whether the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation is liable for compensation in electrocution incidents and whether such claims are maintainable via writ petition or require civil litigation, specifically addressing the distinction between strict and absolute liability.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited; Respondents: Rekha (widow of deceased N. Subramanya) and Muizz Ahmad Shariff; Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol.

What the court decided

• The Court identified the core legal questions as the maintainability of writ petitions for electrocution claims and the applicable standard of liability (strict vs. absolute).
• The Court noted that the High Court had applied the standard of absolute liability, which leaves no scope for exceptions.
• The Court cited the Oleum Gas Leak Case to define absolute liability as applying to hazardous or inherently dangerous activities where the enterprise is liable irrespective of negligence.
• The Court began analyzing the concept of strict liability, noting it generally allows for exceptions unlike absolute liability.
• The Court listed specific disputed facts in both appeals, such as the use of an aluminum ladder and compliance with statutory distance requirements, which the High Court had deemed irrelevant under absolute liability.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'REPORTABLE'.
• The High Court had previously awarded Rs. 25,52,500/- in one case and Rs. 44,32,050/- in the other, with interest at 6%.
• The Court stated that the question of maintainability of writ petitions in electrocution cases is 'no longer res-integra' (settled law).
• The Court observed that the High Court held disputed facts were not relevant because absolute liability was applied.