Delhi High Court Directs BSES To Pay Ex-Gratia Sum Of ₹10 Lakhs To Parents Of Boy Who Died Due To Electrocution

The petitioners sought compensation of around Rs. 5 crore on account of death of their son due to electrocution.

The petitioners claimed that the accident occurred due to negligence from the respondent authority. They claimed that the BSES's failure to maintain the electric line resulted in the falling of the overhead electric line and subsequently, the electrocution of the deceased.

On the other hand, the BSES denied any act of negligence and contended that the present petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution as it involves disputed questions of facts.

A single judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that writ courts can award compensation in cases of violation of the right to life by the State and the negligence can be wholly attributed to it.

The Court referred to the case of Shagufta Ali v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 982, where the Supreme Court observed that the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' would be applicable when the State or its instrumentalities are directly and solely responsible for an incident and the cause and the fact of death are undisputed.

It also referred to Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani (1999), where the Supreme Court denied the relief of compensation in case of death due to alleged electrocution as the negligence on the part of the electricity company could not be established.

After referring to various other cases, the High Court noted that compensation should be refrained in cases where there are disputed questions of facts. It stated that only when the State's liability for a tortious act is undisputed or is prime facie evident from the record, res ipsa loquitor would apply.

It remarked, “The rationale behind the presumption of liability in such cases is based on the ground that it is practically not feasible for the aggrieved persons to gather concrete evidence of negligence and therefore, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur comes to the rescue and helps in overcoming the formal evidentiary burden of the petitioner. However, the same is subject to the proof of foundational facts and manifest negligence directly attributable to the State instrumentalities.”

In the present case, it noted that the status report filed by the Government of NCT (respondent no.1) indicated that during the investigation, an eyewitness made a complaint to the BSES office via phone call and requested them to cut the power supply as one electric wire broke down due to heavy rain and high winds.

The Court noted that there is ambiguity on whether the complaint was received by BSES prior to the said incident or after the same had occurred. It stated, “The same requires a further corroboration to conclusively establish the actual facts and circumstances which led to the said incident and as a sequitur, to determine the liability.”

The status report also revealed that the BSES's officials were given notice under Section 91 CrPC to join the investigation. BSES replied that there was no negligence on its part and that the said incident was a result of various technical issues like earth fault loop impedance.

The Court noted that adjudication of such technical issues fall outside its purview. It stated that a civil court is a competent authority to adjudicate the case.

“Undeniably, adjudication of the aforesaid facts necessitates a specific expertise and technical know-how, which normally falls outside the purview of adjudication by the writ court, as the same would require adducing relevant documents and leading evidence before a competent Civil Court.”

The Court thus was of the view that the negligence cannot be prima facie attributed to the BSES. It held that as the negligence was not conclusively established, res ipsa loquitur would not be applicable.

The Court however awarded an ex-gratia sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioners, to be paid by the BSES.

It stated that the petitioners were at liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies in the civil court. It further said that the ex-gratia amount awarded by it is independent of any compensation which may be awarded by a civil court.

Case title: Devasia Thomas & Anr. vs. Government Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1136