Table of Contents
Death by electrocution: Delhi High Court orders ₹10 lakh compensation on sympathetic grounds
Recently a Delhi High Court passed an order directing DISCOM BSES to pay ₹10 lakhs as ex gratia compensation to a woman who lost her husband in electrocution in 2017 while touching an exposed wire at a market place [Shagufta Ali vs. Government of NCT of Delhi].
To make the position very clear, justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed this order even he has an opinion that negligence for the unfortunate event cannot be fixated on BSES.
However the Court being the appellant took a sympathetic view and awarded the compensation amount to the widow (petitioner) to alleviate her sad and unfortunate loss of her husband. The petitioner was also allowed to seek other proper legal redress before a civil court.
The petitioner’s husband (deceased) worked as a sub-inspector under Delhi police force and died in harness. In 2017 he was an intermediate level student, he was taking shelter from rain at a marketplace, and while touching an iron gate, he received electric shock because leakage of electricity from an exposed wire.
His widow later sought for compensation in the high court from the BSES, following another report by an electricity inspector that ruled out possibility of negligence by the DISCOM in the incident.
Widow filed a plea of ₹50 lakhs against BSES and though that negligence of the DISCOM and failure to maintain the wires had resulted in the untimely death of her husband.
The Court, however, was unable to make any conclusions about lack of negligence on the part of BSES sufficient to suggest that the death was caused by the negligence of BSES only. The Court appreciated BSES’ contention that it was for maintaining the meter that it had installed on the consumer’s premises and the outgoing wires which in any case led to the unfortunate occurrence.
The Court stated that according to the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulations, 2010, the consumer is equally responsible for all the electricity installations falling under his ambit which in the instant case is a shopkeeper.
Therefore it was found that BSES was not solely to be blamed for the untimely demise of the petitioner’s husband.
In such a case the Court stated that ordinarily compensation is paid without any demands for proof if the State has failed to protect the right to life of any of its citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that this was so especially if the State was under a statutory duty of care and in the event the State failed to discharge that duty, the burden shifted and the State was treated as being liable without proof. In such a circumstance, use the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitor which in English means, roughly, “the thing does it.”
In this case, however, the Court pointed out that the said principle would not plug into the picture because the negligence of the BSES was not visible.
Nonetheless, the Court stated that it possesses the prima facie jurisdiction to compensate the petitioner in the pursuit of such a matter on a sympathetic basis.
It pointed out that the Delhi Police had disbursed ₹ 27,96,496 as family pensionary amount and it was observed that further pension shall be paid on monthly basis.
Therefore, to redress the claim of the petitioner the Court directed that ₹10 lakhs only be paid as additional lumpsum compensation by BSES to the petitioner with out any prayer for ₹50 lakhs.
Support allegation made by Saeed Qadri with Saahil Gupta & Mohd. Shakil represented the petitioner
Other Delhi’s Standing Counsels Anuj Aggarwal with Advocates Arshya Singh, Yash Upadhyay and Siddhant Dutt represented Delhi and Delhi Police respectively.
The accused BSES was represented by Advocates Manish Srivastava, Moksh Arora, Santosh Ramdurg and Yash Srivastava,
