On the question of yardstick of compensation, we find this Court to have observed in a two-Judge Bench decision in Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. MANU/SC/1204/2014 : 2014:INSC:885 : (2014) 15 SCC 1, that 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. This holding in Raman (supra) relies on Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha MANU/SC/1098/2013 : 2013:INSC:717 : (2014) 1 SCC 384. Be that as it may, the overarching principle of just and reasonable, fair compensation would govern the calculation here as well, based on the income of the person and other related claims. {Para 15}
Civil Appeal No. 10659 of 2026
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. Rekha and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Author: Sanjay Karol, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 847,MANU/SC/0863/2026
No comments:
Post a Comment