$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:24^th January, 2025 + W.P.(C) 3442/2024 RINA DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Kathuria, Mr. Sagar Chauhan, Mr. Dhruv Varma and Mr. Shekhar Nehra, Advocates.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Mehak Nakra, Additional Standing Counsel with Ms. Bhavya Nakra, Mr. Aditya Goyal, Ms. Gunjan Suyal and Ms. Salonee, Advocates for R1.

Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Moksha Arora and Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Advocates for R2.

Mr. Mohit Paul, Ms. Rangoli Seth and Mr. Rohit, Advocates for R3.

Inspector Satbir Singh, PS-Jaitpur.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is preferred by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“In light of the submissions made herein above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus thereby directing Respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 44,75,080 in favour of the Petitioner, as mentioned categorically:

A. Direct The Respondents to pay the compensation of Rs 5,00,000/-

fixed by Victims of Electrical Accident Regulations B. Direct The Respondents to pay the compensation of Rs 39,25,080/-

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3442/2024 Page 1 of 16 calculated according to minimum wages fixed by Government of NCT of Delhi.

C. Order for investigation and conducting periodical checks on electrical installations and take adequate precautions to ensure that no live parts are so exposed as to cause any danger.

D. Direct The Respondents to award cost of litigation of Rs 50,000/-

(Fifty Thousand Only) in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. Case of the Petitioner is that on 20.03.2016, Petitioner obtained the electricity connection from BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (‘BSES’). On 11.06.2023, daughter of the Petitioner went to the terrace of his neighbour’s house and on coming in contact with the high voltage wires over the rooftop, was electrocuted and succumbed to the injuries after five days of hospitalisation.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is the sole negligence of the Respondents which caused the electrocution and Respondents are thus liable to compensate the Petitioner. It is urged that as per Rules 46, 50 and 91 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 made under Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity Department is bound to conduct periodical checks on electrical installations and take adequate precautions to ensure that no live parts are exposed so as to cause any danger and in the present case, no safeguards/precautions were followed by the Respondents leading to Petitioner’s daughter getting electrocuted due to the hanging live wires.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel that in case titled Munni Devi v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 46, this Court has in similar facts where death occurred due to electrocution held the Respondents guilty of negligence and awarded compensation. Delhi Electricity Regulation Commission has fixed Rs.5 Lac compensation for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3442/2024 Page 2 of 16 loss of human life as a result of an electrical accident under Chapter-III, Regulation-6.1 of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2021.

5. It is submitted that Petitioner has quantified the compensation at Rs.42,77,298/- and is entitled to be awarded the said amount on the principle of res ipsa loquitur since the facts clearly show that there is conscious negligence on the part of the Respondents for lack of taking effective preventive steps, knowingly fully well that overhead transmission line was in violation of Regulation 63 of Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety & Electric Supply) Regulation, 2023. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricit