Bombay High Court
NAMDEO SHANKAR MULEversusTHE MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRI CO LTD AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The multiplier method is not applicable to electrocution cases; the award for loss of income stands, but the non‑pecuniary compensation is enhanced.
Summary
The petitioners sought compensation after their daughter died from electrocution, challenging a Permanent Lok Adalat award of Rs.2 lakh for loss of income and Rs.50,000 for loss of love and affection. They argued that the multiplier method used in motor accident cases should apply to increase the pecuniary compensation. The respondents relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment (Karnataka Power Transmission Corp. Ltd. v. Rekha) stating that the multiplier method is inapplicable to electrocution cases and that compensation must be based on the principle of just and reasonable compensation under the Electricity Act, 2003. The High Court upheld the Supreme Court’s view, rejecting the petitioners’ request to enhance loss‑of‑income compensation, but allowed enhancement of non‑pecuniary heads, granting an additional Rs.1,40,000 for loss of consortium and Rs.30,000 for funeral expenses. The respondents were directed to pay the enhanced amount with interest, and the related civil application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the multiplier method prescribed for motor accident compensation can be applied to compensation for death due to electrocution.
- Whether the compensation awarded under non‑pecuniary heads (loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses) should be enhanced.
Legislation cited
- Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 57
Subjects
- compensation
- electrocution
- Permanent Lok Adalat
- non‑pecuniary compensation
- loss of consortium
- Electricity Act 2003
- multiplier method
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38664
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 WRIT PETITION NO. 8892 OF 2017
Namdeo Shankar Mule
VERSUS
The Maharashtra State Electricity Board Now Maharashtra State
Electricity Distri Co Ltd And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok R. Tapse h/f Mr. Suryawanshi
Prashant D.
Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. A. S. Shelke
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7367 OF 2026
IN WP/8892/2017
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Dated : August 25, 2026
ORAL ORDER :
1. The present petition is filed to assail the award dated 20/09/2016
passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in Application No.43 of 2016. The
daughter of the petitioners died due to electrocution on 05/10/2013.
The petitioners approached the Lok Adalat seeking compensation to
the tune of Rs.8,02,000/-. The Permanent Lok Adalat found that the
respondents were responsible for the unfortunate incident and held the
respondents liable to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakh to the petitioners
by placing reliance on Circular No.192 dated 20/11/2008. Apart from
this, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and
affection of the daughter. The petitioners have filed the present
petition seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation.
Page 1 of 5
901 WP 8892-2017
2. While issuing notice, vide order dated 04/09/2017, this Court
had expressed that the compensation awarded towards loss of
income was proper and did not warrant any interference. Notice was
issued on the limited ground with respect to compensation under
non-pecuniary heads. The petitioners have filed Civil Application
No.7367 of 2026 seeking recall of the said order, which foreclosed
their right to assail the compensation awarded under pecuniary
heads. The learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that the
yardstick applicable for determining compensation in Motor Accident
cases should be applied and the multiplier method should be
adopted. Application is filed to seek enhancement of compensation
awarded against monetary heads.
3. The learned Advocate for the respondents opposed the
application as well as the petition on merits. He placed reliance on a
recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Rekha,
2026 INSC 847, to contend that the parameters for determination
of compensation under Motor Accident cases are not applicable to
cases of accidental deaths due to electrocution. Reference is made
to paragraph No.15 of the Judgment, which reads as under :
Page 2 of 5
901 WP 8892-2017
“15. 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., 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. 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.”
4. In view of the clear position of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Page 3 of 5
901 WP 8892-2017
Supreme Court that compensation under the head of loss of income
cannot be computed by following the multiplier method, which is
usually adopted in motor accident cases, in the considered opinion of
this Court, the impugned award does not warrant any interference
insofar as the compensation under the head of loss of income is
concerned. In view of the aforesaid, Civil Application No.7367 of
2026 is rejected. It is held that the impugned award does not warrant
any interference with respect to the compensation determined under
the head of loss of income.
5. Apart from the amount of Rs.2 lakh awarded towards loss of
income, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded by the Permanent Lok
Adalat towards loss of love and affection. The compensation under
the non-pecuniary heads needs to be enhanced. The
petitioners/parents of the deceased and Nivrutti (brother) and
Bhagyashri (sister), of the deceased shall be entitled to
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Thus,
an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- is payable towards loss of consortium. In
addition, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards funeral
expenses and loss of estate.
Page 4 of 5
901 WP 8892-2017
6. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable under the
non-pecuniary heads would be Rs.1,90,000/- as against Rs.50,000/-
awarded by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat. The petition is partly
allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned
Permanent Lok Adalat by an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. The
respondents are directed to pay the enhanced amount of
compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from 01/11/2015, i.e. the first day of the calendar month
after filing of the application, till the date of realization of the said
amount. Pending CA stands disposed of.
( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
vj gawade/-.
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…