The Delhi High Court recently awarded an ex gratia compensation of ₹10 lakh to the parents of an 18-year-old boy who tragically lost his life due to electrocution.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while delivering the judgment, acknowledged that although there was no clear evidence of negligence by the state, it was appropriate to compensate the grieving parents.

The boy had gone to a nearby park to play football with friends when, around 6:00 p.m., his mother was informed that he had been electrocuted.

He was rushed to G.T.B. Hospital in Shahdara, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Following the incident, on July 11, 2017, the boy's parents, distressed by their son’s death, sent a legal notice to BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL) seeking compensation of ₹5,02,21,600/-, including ₹5 crore for the loss of life and ₹2,21,600/- for funeral expenses. However, they received no response from the electricity provider.

Advocate Wills Mathews, representing the family, argued that BYPL’s negligence in maintaining its electrical infrastructure caused the accident. He presented evidence suggesting that local residents had repeatedly complained about the aging overhead wires, including a formal representation by the Residents Welfare Association on January 6, 2016. An eyewitness reported seeing sparks near the conductor before the wire fell, further suggesting equipment failure.

In defense, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, representing BYPL, challenged the claims of negligence. He cited a forensic report indicating that the point of contact was on the boy’s left thumb, disputing the parents’ claim that he had stepped on the wire. BYPL also maintained that it had taken necessary precautions and that the incident was caused by external factors like high winds, which led to the wire snapping.

The court referenced prior cases, including *Shagufta Ali v. Govt. of NCT Delhi*, where writ jurisdiction was invoked for violation of the right to life, reinforcing the principle of compensating victims in similar cases. The court also touched upon the legal doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur*, which allows for a presumption of negligence when the circumstances surrounding an incident point to the state’s liability. However, the court found that the facts in this case were contested, particularly regarding BYPL’s alleged negligence, and thus, the matter would be better resolved through civil litigation.

While the court concluded that negligence could not be conclusively attributed to BYPL at this stage, it still found it appropriate to award an ex gratia compensation of ₹10 lakh to the parents in light of the tragic loss they suffered.

The case was represented by multiple legal teams:
- For the petitioner: Advocates Wills Mathews, Ginesh P, Nandita Batra, Paul John, Edison, and Dhanesh M. Nair
- For GNCTD: Additional Standing Counsel Rishikesh Kumar with Advocates Sheenu Priya, Atik Gill, Sudhir Kumar Shukla, and Sudhir
- For BYPL: Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur with Advocates Anupam Varma, Nikhil Sharma, and Simran Kohli.

Case Title: *Devasia Thomas v Government Of NCT Of Delhi* (2024:DHC:7817).