Death by electrocution: Delhi High Court orders ₹10 lakh compensation on sympathetic grounds

The Delhi High Court recently ordered electricity distributor (DISCOM) BSES to pay ₹10 lakhs as ex gratia compensation to the widow of a man who died from electrocution in 2017 after coming in contact with an exposed wire at a market place [Shagufta Ali vs. Government of NCT of Delhi]..Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order even though he concluded that negligence for the unfortunate incident could not be attributed to BSES.However, the Court took a sympathetic view and granted the compensation amount to the widow (petitioner) to ameliorate the tragic loss of her husband. The petitioner was also given the liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies before a civil court. .The petitioner’s husband (deceased) was a sub-inspector under Delhi Police. In 2017, when he was taking shelter from rain, he came in contact with an iron gate at a marketplace and got electrocuted due to a leak of electricity from an exposed wire.His widow later moved the High Court for compensation from the BSES, after an electricity inspector's report said that the incident could not be linked to any negligence by the DISCOM.The widow sought ₹50 lakhs as compensation from BSES and argued that the DISCOM's negligence and failure to maintain the wires had led to her husband's untimely demise. .The Court, however, found that there was not enough evidence to indicate that the death occurred solely due to the negligence of BSES. The Court found merit in BSES' argument that it was only responsible for maintaining the meter installed by it on the consumer’s premises and not the outgoing wires which ultimately led to the unfortunate incident.The Court noted that under the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulations, 2010, the consumer (a shopkeeper, in this case) is also obligated to maintain all electricity installations under his control. Thus, BSES was held not solely responsible for the unfortunate death of the petitioner’s husband..The Court noted that ordinarily, compensation is granted without any insistence on strict proof if the State's failure to protect a citizen's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is manifest. The Court observed that when the State is under a statutory duty of care and fails to fulfil such duty, the presumption of liability without proof arises. In such cases, the principle of res ipsa loquitor (a maxim that loosely translates to "the thing speaks for itself") applies. In this case, however, the Court noted that the principle would not apply since the BSES' negligence was not evident. .Nevertheless, the Court said that it has the discretion to award compensation to the petitioner on sympathetic grounds. It noted that the Delhi Police had already given ₹27,96,496 in family pensionary benefits and that additional pension payments will be made on a monthly basis. In view of this, the Court ordered that only ₹10 lakhs be paid (instead of the ₹50 lakhs prayed for by the petitioner) as additional lumpsum compensation by BSES to the petitioner. .Advocates Saeed Qadri with Saahil Gupta and Mohd. Shakil represented the petitionerAdditional Standing Counsel Anuj Aggarwal along with advocates Arshya Singh, Yash Upadhyay and Siddhant Dutt appeared for the Delhi government and Delhi PoliceAdvocates Manish Srivastava, Moksh Arora, Santosh Ramdurg and Yash Srivastava appeared for BSES..[Read Order]