Compensation for electrocution under public law is contingent on clear evidence of negligence; disputed facts necessitate civil court adjudication.

J U D G M E N T

In the instant writ petition, the Court is called upon to adjudicate the dispute pertaining to the claim for compensation on account of unfortunate death of the petitioner‟s husband due to electrocution. The petitioner is a widow of late Mr. Afzal Ali, who died due to electrocution on 21.05.2017. She is, therefore, seeking compensation amounting to Rs.50 lakhs from the official respondents. 2. The facts of the case would exhibit that the husband of the petitioner, namely Mr. Afzal Ali (hereinafter “deceased”) was working as a Sub-Inspector since 1990 in Delhi Police (Traffic). The marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was solemnized in the year 1991 and three children were born out of the wedlock.

3. On the fateful day of 21.05.2017, when the deceased had gone to the cycle market to buy a gift for his youngest child, it started raining. He ran to find shelter and while endeavouring to protect himself from rain, he came in contact with a channel gate located near Shop No.330 in New Lajpat Rai Market and got electrocuted. He was then taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, where, he was unfortunately declared dead on arrival.

4. After the post-mortem was conducted, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the mortuary. Thereafter, FIR No. 133/2017 was registered at Police Station (Kotwali), Delhi under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner, however, came to know about the incident on the following day i.e., on 22.05.2017 and thereafter, she conducted the last rites of the deceased.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner appears to have filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the concerned magistrate. However, it appears that on 09.10.2019, charge sheet was filed against one Jai Gopal Grover, who happened to be the shopkeeper from whose shop the current was allegedly flowing to the channel gate. The petitioner, thereafter, made representation to respondent no.1-Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and respondent no.2-BSES Yamuna Power Limited (hereinafter “BSES”) seeking compensation of Rs.50 lakhs for the negligence of statutory duty as prescribed under Section 42 and 53 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulations 13, 30 and 34 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter “CEA Regulations, 2010”).

6. BSES, which is a distribution licensee (DISCOM) defined under Section 2(17) of the Electricity Act, 2003 , replied to the abovementioned representation and stated that upon inspection, it was determined that while the BSES network remained intact, an exposed wire emanating from the shop‟s meter was found to be in contact with the shutter resulting in the leakage of current and the said leakage was fixed by BSES. It was also stated that the matter is currently under investigation and the Electrical Inspector‟s report indicated that no negligence could be attributed on the part of BSES.

7. Being dissatisfied with the aforementioned response, the petitioner has subsequently filed the instant writ petition.

8. Mr. Saeed Qadri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased died on account of electrocution, consequential to a breach of duty and non-feasance by BSES. He places reliance on Regulation 13(1) of the CEA Regulations, 2010, which according to him, obligates the supplier to ensure that all the electric supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus belonging to it or under its control, which are on a consumer‟s premises, are in a safe condition. It is further contended that DERC (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter “DERC Supply Code, 2017”) may be referred to understand the meaning of “point of supply” and “distribution system” indicating that responsibility is qua the whole system of electricity distribution.

9. It is alleged that Regulations 30 and 34 of CEA Regulations, 2010 have not been adhered to which mandat