Delhi High Court: In a petition filed for claiming compensation, on account of the unfortunate death of the petitioners’ 18-year-old son (‘the deceased’), who allegedly got electrocuted from falling over a non-insulated live electric line, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., stated that the maxim res ipsa loquitur was applied in cases where the facts clearly and unequivocally attribute the responsibility for the incident to statutory authorities, rather than to any act which was beyond human control and knowledge or natural occurrences. Since, in the present case, there was no conclusive evidence, the present case did not satisfy the requirement of application of the maxim res ipsa loquitur. Thus, the Court granted an ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10,00,000, which was to be paid by BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. to the parents of the deceased.
Background
In the present case, Petitioner 1 worked as an Archives Clerk with a company in Dubai and Petitioner 2 was employed as a Nursing Officer at a hospital in Delhi. The family of the petitioners consisted of their deceased son and a daughter.
On 21-05-2017, the deceased went out to play football in the nearby park, along with his neighbourhood friends. Thereafter, the deceased’s mother received a call from one of the friends of her son, who informed that the deceased had met with an accident after getting an electric shock. The deceased was then rushed to the hospital, where he was declared dead on arrival. Subsequently, on hearing the news of the unfortunate event, the deceased’s father, who was in Dubai, rushed back to Delhi.
On 11-07-2017, being anguished by the death of their son on account of alleged negligence of the respondents, the deceased’s parents sent a legal notice to them seeking a sum of Rs. 5,02,21,600. However, the petitioners did not receive any response from the respondents. Thus, the present petition was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
Regarding the question that whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked by the deceased’s parents for seeking compensation because of death due to electrocution, the Court relied on Shagufta Ali v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6250; Nilabati Behara v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746; D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416 and MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn, (2011) 14 SCC 481. The Court stated that the writ jurisdiction could be invoked by the aggrieved, in cases of violation of the right to life by the State, as such a remedy was fundamental to public law, and upholds the principles of justice and accountability.
The Court stated that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court should ordinarily refrain from awarding compensation, a remedy primarily available in civil law domain, in cases involving disputed questions of fact. However, if the State’s liability for a tortious act was undisputed or was prime facie evident from the record, the maxim res ipsa loquitur might be applied to overcome any factual impediments.
The Court observed that the in the present case, a call was made to the police station informing that a person was lying in an unconscious state due to electric shock. The post-mortem report also mentioned the cause of death as ante-mortem electrocution. Therefore, it was an undisputed fact that the deceased died due to electrocution, which was also recorded in the FIR.
The Court stated that the facts and contentions made by the parties indicated that the negligence that led to the leakage of electricity current in the waterlogged area, prima facie, could not conclusively and solely be attributed to BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. The relevant fact in the present case did not conclusively establish that it was only the DISCOM i.e., BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., whose negligence ultimately led to the unfortunate accident.
The Court stated that the maxim res ipsa loquitur was applied in cases where the facts clearly and unequivocally attribute the responsibility for the incident to statutory authorities, rather than to any act which was beyond human control and knowledge or natural occurrences. Since, in the present case, there was no conclusive evidence, the present case does not satisfy the requirement of application of the maxim res ipsa loquitur.
The Court stated that in view of the circumstances of the present case, the Court issued directions regarding ex-gratia compensation which should be payable to the petitioners to ameliorate their suffering for the time being, following the tragic loss of a son. Thus, the Court granted an ex-gratia lump sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000, to be paid by BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. to the parents of the deceased, within three months. The Court stated that any failure to comply with the same would result in the petitioners being entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Court clarified that the ex-gratia amount awarded by this Court was independent of, and in addition to, any compensation that might be awarded by the civil court.
[Devasia Thomas v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7087, decided on 07-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Wills Mathews, Ginesh P, Nandita Batra, Paul John, Edison and Dhanesh M. Nair, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Rishikesh Kumar, ASC-GNCTD with Sheenu Priya, Atik Gill, Sudhir Kumar Shukla and Sudhir, Advocates; Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Anupam Varma, Nikhil Sharma and Simran Kohli, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
