Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 30 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Appellants: Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) represented by its Managing Director and several engineers.
  • Respondent No.1: Sri Govindappa, aged about 63, who suffered severe electrical injuries on 09 June 2015 resulting in amputation of his left hand; also respondents: Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and HR Development Officer.
  • Original dispute: Govindappa sought compensation of ₹32,00,000 invoking Motor Vehicles Act principles; BESCOM had earlier paid ₹1,20,000 under an administrative circular.
  • Single Judge order (12 Feb 2025) awarded total compensation of ₹27,88,925 with 6% interest, based on MV Act methodology and assumptions of income, disability, multiplier.
  • BESCOM appealed, arguing limitation, liability disputes, improper application of MV Act, and that strict liability (not absolute) with exceptions applies per Supreme Court’s recent Rekha judgment; also cited acquittal of officials in criminal case.

Findings / Reasoning

  • Court reiterated principles of strict liability (Rylands v Fletcher) and absolute liability (M.C. Mehta) but clarified Supreme Court’s Rekha decision limits electricity undertakings to strict liability with recognized exceptions.
  • Highlighted that where material facts about cause, negligence, or third‑party interference are contested, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is inappropriate; such matters require civil trial.
  • Noted that the earlier Division Bench decision relied upon by Single Judge was overruled by Supreme Court; multiplier method from MV Act cannot be transplanted to electrical accidents.
  • Administrative payment of ₹1.20 lakh does not constitute an unequivocal admission of full tort liability; its effect must be read in context of the circular.
  • Criminal acquittals do not bar civil liability, as standards of proof differ.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is allowed; the order dated 12 Feb 2025 awarding ₹27,88,925 is set aside and W.P. No.11558/2024 is dismissed.
  • Respondent Govindappa is free to pursue his compensation claim in a competent civil court or other appropriate forum; the court makes no determination on the quantum of any further award.
  • No order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

Topics: Compensation Law; Electricity Liability