In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has mandated BSES, a leading power distribution company, to pay Rs. 10 lakh in ex-gratia compensation to Shagufta Ali, the widow of Sub Inspector Afzal Ali who tragically died from electrocution in 2017.
Sub Inspector Afzal Ali lost his life to an unfortunate electrocution incident on May 21, 2017, while he was at the New Lajpat Rai Market in Delhi. Following his death, his widow sought Rs. 50 lakh in compensation from the responsible parties, which included BSES.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, overseeing the case, ordered the compensation, citing, “In light of the benefits already extended to the petitioner, the Court, in its discretion, deems it appropriate to grant an ex-gratia lump sum compensation of Rs 10 Lakh.” The judge emphasized that the compensation should be disbursed within three months from the judgment date, with a stipulation for additional interest should there be a delay.
The court’s decision acknowledged that while the family of the deceased has received Rs. 27,96,496 in family pension benefits, and continues to receive a monthly pension, the ex-gratia payment stands independent of any future compensations that may be awarded by a Civil Court.
The High Court also took into consideration the procedural aspects, directing BSES to avoid unnecessary delays in the proceedings and allowing Shagufta Ali the liberty to pursue further legal remedies through a Civil Court, which has been instructed to resolve any subsequent claims within a year.
The background of the case paints a sorrowful picture. Afzal Ali, a veteran Sub Inspector with the Delhi Police since 1990, met with the fatal accident under distressing circumstances. Attempting to seek shelter from rain, he accidentally came in contact with an electrically live gate, which led to his immediate death upon being admitted to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital.
Despite the claims of negligence, the court noted that it was premature to place sole responsibility on BSES for the electrocution, recognizing that the case’s complexity required further examination in a Civil Court setting.
