Disputed electrocution liability ordinarily requires civil adjudication, not compensation proceedings under Article 226.

The petitioner, represented by his mother, sought ₹90 lakh compensation with interest for burn injuries allegedly sustained in an electrocution incident during construction work at respondent No. 8’s farm house.

He also sought a direction requiring the power-distribution company to decide his pending representation for compensation.

The State submitted that the FIR attributed the alleged failure to take precautions to respondent No. 8, and the respondents contended that the claim involved disputed questions of fact requiring civil proceedings.

The petitioner had also relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Naval Kumar alias Rohit Kumar in claiming compensation.

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim for compensation for electrocution-related injuries could be adjudicated in a petition under Article 226, given the disputed questions of fact concerning the incident and liability.

2. Whether the petitioner had an effective remedy before the competent Civil Court, and whether limitation or court fees would prevent him from pursuing that remedy.

Article 226 confers discretionary writ jurisdiction, but a High Court may decline to exercise it where disputed facts require evidence and are more appropriately determined in civil proceedings.

The principles in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771, and T.N. Cements Corpn. Ltd. v. Unicon Engineers, (2025) 4 SCC 1, recognise that alternative remedies and the nature of the dispute guide the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

In electrocution claims, Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das, (1999) 7 SCC 298, holds that electrocution alone does not establish negligence; where liability and the circumstances of the incident are disputed, those matters ordinarily require evidence before a civil court.

The Court also relied on Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1545, applying these principles to electrocution claims.

It further noted the Chhattisgarh High Court’s prior order in W.P.(C) No. 2453 of 2018, which stated that limitation and court fees would not stand in the way of filing a civil suit in an electrocution matter.

The Court considered that the incident, the circumstances in which the petitioner was injured, and the identity and extent of any party’s liability were not free from dispute.

The FIR’s allegation against respondent No. 8, together with the need to determine negligence and liability, meant that the claim could not appropriately be resolved on affidavits in writ proceedings and was suited to a civil suit requiring evidence.

The Court therefore declined to adjudicate the compensation claim under Article 226, while noting that limitation and court fees would not prevent the petitioner from bringing a civil suit.

It expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim and noted that limitation and court fees would not stand in the way of filing the suit.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.