JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—Petitioner Srat. Radha Singh is the widow of Jagdish Chand Singha. She hails from village Dharoli of District Shimla. Her husband died on August 5, 1989 leaving behind his wife and three minor children—petitioners in this case. Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have claimed compensation of rupees ten lac for the negligence of the respondents. Facts of the case may now be discussed. On August 5, 1989, the deceased was coming to Shimla by night-bus No. HPS 5356 belonging to respondent-3. It was Kaza—Shimla service. When the bus reached Nani Dhank, the road was found blocked due to heavy land slide on the National Highway. When the road was not cleared for a long time, the passengers got down from the bus, on the instructions of the driver, to help the labourers of respond ent-2 to clear the road expeditiously. It has been pointed out that respondent-2 had not put any sign board or red flag for warning people not to approach the dangerous spot. While the passengers were clearing the road, land slide came down immediately and burned all the passengers including the deceased. Some of the dead bodies could be extricated from under the debus hundred feet below the road. First Information Report 15/89 was lodged with Police Station, Theog on August 6, 1989. 2. Besides this bus, there were other vehicles standing on the road side. Out of them, one truck was totally damaged on account of the same land slide. This land slide occurred on August 5, 1989 at 4.30 a m The first bus Kalpa—Chandigarh had reached this place at 1.30 a m while the bus of the deceased reached there later on. 3. Some of the dead bodies were shifted to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla where they were handed over to their relatives. This land slide occurred on August 5, 1989 at 4.30 a m The first bus Kalpa—Chandigarh had reached this place at 1.30 a m while the bus of the deceased reached there later on. 3. Some of the dead bodies were shifted to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla where they were handed over to their relatives. The petitioners also received the dead body of the deceased and travelling tickets were found in the pockets of the deceased (Anncxure PA) Certificate (Annexure PC) by HC 78, Police Station, Theog substantiates the death of the deceased in this accident and handing over of the body of the deceased to his brother-in-law for cremation The death certificate (Annexure PD) which has been issued by Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Matiana, describes the death of the deceased due to compound fracture of skull, head injury and multiple crush injuries due to land slide Petitioner-l also sought death certificate of the deceased from Gram Panchayat, Khaneti signed by Tehsildar, Kumarsain and Secretary Gram Panchayat, Khaneti (Annexure PE). 4. The petitioners complain that the accident took place due to the sheer negligence on the part of respondent-2 since the responsibility to maintain the National Highway was on it. It is a very busy road available for traffic for twenty-four hours. Section 5 of the National Highway Act, 1956 provides that it is the duty of the State to maintain the National Highway. Since respondent-2 failed to maintain the National Highway which resulted in this accident, it is liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved persons. It did not take precautionary measures to provide safe passage to the passengers passing through this road by deploying adequate number of labourers, machines and displaying signals and preventing people from approaching the dangerous site. The deceased was Upper Division Clerk in Electricity Board and was earning Rs. 3018 per month. Petitioner-l was a JBT teacher in a school near her village left with these minor children and great mental shock due to the sudden death of her husband at young age, could not collect documents and pursue the matter at the earliest. After this death, the whole burden of looking after the agricultural land of five Bighas, rearing of the minor children and attending the Government job has fallen on her shoulders. After this death, the whole burden of looking after the agricultural land of five Bighas, rearing of the minor children and attending the Government job has fallen on her shoulders. In case compensation is awarded to the petitioners, that may, to some extent, ease her difficulties and help her in looking-after .the children and their education. 5. Superintending Engineer, 2nd Circle, H.P. Public Works Department has filed affidavit on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2. It has been admitted that the deceased was travelling by this bus which was stopped by the driver in the mid-night at the point of accident due to blockade of road and that the passengers, including the deceased, got down from the bus of their own and started removing the boulders lying on the load. While doing so, there was heavy land slide and the deceased including some other passengers were trapped in the said land slide as a result of which some of them suffered heavy injuries while the others died on the spot. There was no fault on the part of respondent-2. The big land slide was a natural calamity and act of God. The deceased lost his life due to his own fault, therefore, the claim is not maintainable, however, the State Government granted Rs. 35,000 to the kith and km of the deceased by way of relief to the bereaved family. A few boulders rolled down to the road at about 2: 30 a m. A bus from Kaza to Shimla was held up with about 22-25 persons who tried to remove the boulders but could not do so and they returned to their bus. Thereafter, bus Kalpa—Chandigarh with 73 passengers came at about 4: 00 a.m. The passengers of the two buses decided to make another attempt to remove the blockade. Incidently, about 30-40 labourers were staying in the temporary sheds near the point of the land slide. They declined to remove the blockade due to darkness. The passengers took some T and P from them at their own risk and tried to remove the blockade. While they were working, they were trapped under the massive land slide which came all of a sudden leaving no time for running away from the site. They declined to remove the blockade due to darkness. The passengers took some T and P from them at their own risk and tried to remove the blockade. While they were working, they were trapped under the massive land slide which came all of a sudden leaving no time for running away from the site. Even then, about fifteen passengers mauaged to come out with multiple injuries and they were taken to the hospital in a bus, Twenty bodies were recovered from the land slide on August 5 and 6, 1989, The Department acted promptly to meet the challenge which was the result of natural calamity. No labourer of the Department was working at the site of land slide due to darkness, more over, the working hours of labour were from 9.00 a.m to 5.00 p. m as such there was no question of clearing the land slide by the labourers of the Department after 5 00 p m. Therefore, it was wrong to say that the passengers of the bus came down to help the labourers of the Department to clear the blockade in the darkness. It has been admitted that National Highway-22 is busy throughout day and night and the same is maintained according to the standards. When the labour worked, the road was in good shape and there were no signs of danger Nobody could imagine that such happening would happen during the mid night as such there was no question of putting sign-board of danger or red-flag near the spot It was a calamity beyond human control, therefore, negligence could not be attributed to the respondents. 6. Respondent-3 has stated that there was no negligence on its part. The bus was stopped at a long distance from the place of occurrence. The driver did not ask the passengers to get down and help the labourers. As a matter of fact, as per its information, no labourer was there at that time. The passengers got down from the bus of their own and driver could not have given any such instruction during the course of his duties. The driver did not ask the passengers to get down and help the labourers. As a matter of fact, as per its information, no labourer was there at that time. The passengers got down from the bus of their own and driver could not have given any such instruction during the course of his duties. The occurrence took place due to heavy rains and land slides and it was an act of God for which responsibility can hardly be fastened on any of the respondents, The petitioners ought to have filed a civil suit for the recovery of compensation instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Through the rejoinder-affidavit dated July 26, 1992, the petitioner have repudiated the objection as to the maintainability of this case in this Court. It has also been stated that the State Government granted ex gratia payment of Rs. 10,000 and not Rs 35,000 as alleged. Labourers of respondent-2 refused to work in the darkness showing clearly that respondent-2 had not instructed them or made alternative arrangement to clear the road from debris in case of emergency, thereby showing complete inefficiency and negligence in the management and maintenance of a National Highway which is required to be open for traffic without any obstruction during twenty-four hours. It had been raining for the past 2-3 days. Blasting of rocks for widening the road had been undertaken. Further, there was earthquake also at the site These factors had loosened the earth strata and the region was coming down resulting in the collapse of retaining wall also at the site. Media reports (Annexures PG to PI) further establish the situation at site and the nature of geographical strata of the land slide taking place at the site. Since the bus belonged to respondent-3, compensation has also to be paid by this respondent. 8. Shri D. C. Jishtu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and grant relief to the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the bus belonged to respondent-3, compensation has also to be paid by this respondent. 8. Shri D. C. Jishtu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and grant relief to the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Competence to grant ameliorating relief to aggrieved person can be extended by the Court devising appropriate method and procedure instead of directing a disappointed party to have recourse to lengthy and comber some procedure of Civil Court, more so, when time to file the civil case has run out in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, explained by the petitioners Power of the apex Court under Article 32 and of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is distinct and wide, available to aggrieved person in addition to other remedies. In support of these submissions, strong reliance was placed on AIR 1982 SC i49, S P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others; AIR 1983 SC 1086, Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and another ; AIR 1984 SC 802, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others ; AIR 1984 SC 1026, Sebastian M. Hongroy v. Union of India ; AIR 1986 SC 494, Bhim Singh, ML A v. State of J. and K and others ; AIR 1987 SC 1086, M C. Mehta and another v. Union of India and others ; ATR 1989 SC 150, A. S Mittaland others v. State of U.P. and others; AIR 1990 SC 1417, Assam Sitlimanite Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others; AIR 1992 SC 2069, Smt. Kumari v State of Tamil Nadu and others; AIR 1993 SC I960, Smt Nilabati Behara alias Lalita Behara v. State of Orissa and others; (1990) 1 SCC 422, Saheli, A Womens Resources Centre, through Ms-Nalini Bhanot and others v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Head. quarters and others ; (1991) 3 SCC 482, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee through its Hony. Secretary v. State of Bihar and others; AIR 1988 Ker 206 Thressia v. K. S. E. B; AIR 1992 Cal 207, Rabindra Nath Ghosalv. quarters and others ; (1991) 3 SCC 482, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee through its Hony. Secretary v. State of Bihar and others; AIR 1988 Ker 206 Thressia v. K. S. E. B; AIR 1992 Cal 207, Rabindra Nath Ghosalv. University of Calcutta and others ; AIR 1992 Orissa 68, Padma Behari Lai v Orissa State Electricity Board and another; 1989 ACJ 348, Sita Rani Gupta v. State of Assam and others ; 1989 ACJ 655, Lalitha v Director-General of Police and others ; ILR (HP Series) (1981) 339. A K Vasudeva v State of H P and others; ILR (HP Series) (1987) 359, Jaram Singh v. State of H P and others ; ILR (HP Series) (1987) 373, Kalawati and others v. State of H P. and another and 1993 (I) Sim LC 3^0, Mohan Lai v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. It was also contended that there are no disputed questions of fact in this case. Available material is sufficient to substantiate the allegations of negligence on the part of the respondents, therefore, the dispute can be settled appropriately by this Court. 9. The submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are fully covered by these decisions. Tersely speaking, it is well settled that Courts can, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, grant appropriate relief to the aggrieved person without directing him to avail other remedies In case adequate material is available, full relief can competently be granted. However, Court may direct the petitioner to approach Civil Court or any other forum for full relief, in case grant of the full relief may not be possible for lack of adequate material, depending on the facts of the case either full relief may be awarded or interim relief may be extended. In the latter case aggrieved party may approach the Civil Court and seek the maximum relief after producing proper evidence before the Court. Looking to the material placed before us by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that appropriated relief can be awarded to the petitioners without directing them to approach the Civil Court when the time for doing so has run out. Looking to the material placed before us by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that appropriated relief can be awarded to the petitioners without directing them to approach the Civil Court when the time for doing so has run out. Apart from this conclusion, learned Counsel for the respondents rightly submitted that in view of numerous pronouncements of apex Court and High Courts, it would not be possible for them to oppose the petition on the ground that the relief being sought by the petitioners cannot be awarded under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Now, the question of negligence may be examined. Precisely, the submission of the petitioners is that respondent-1 committed negligence in the management and maintenance of National Highway-22 by not keeping the road open to traffic 24 hours in view of heavy rush of traffic and not deploying labourers adequately for the purpose and displaying sign-board or red-flag pointing out the danger, thereby failing to perform the mandatory duty under the National Highway Act, 1956. 11. Respondents’ case is that labourers could work during the fixed hours and there was no question of the labour being deployed to clear the road after that period. The road was clear when the labour left the site. The massive land slide occurred during the night all of a sudden over which they had no control. The passengers of the two buses started clearing the boulders of their own and the respondents could not be held responsible for the tragedy. The road was clear, requirement of displaying sign-board or red-flag was not necessary. 12. After examining the whole material on this aspect of the case, we have no option but to reject the case of respondent-h Sections 2 and 5 of the National Highway Act, 1956 (hereafter, the Act) provide that : "2. Declaration of certain highways to be national highways.—(1) Each of the highways specified in the Schedule except such parts thereof as are situated within any municipal area is hereby declared to be a national highway (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare any other highway to be a national highway and on the publication of such notification such highway shall be deemed to be specified in the Schedule. (3) The Central Government may, by like notification, omit any highway from the Schedule and on the publication of such notification, the highway so omitted shall cease to be a national highway." "5. Responsibility for development and maintenance of national highways—It shall be the responsibility of the Central Government to develop and maintain in proper repair all national highways ; but the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that any function in relation to the development or maintenance of any national highway shall, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, also be exercisable by the Government of the State within which the national highway is situated or by any officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to the State Government.” 13. The Schedule under section 2 of the Act records National High-way-22 against serial number 14. It is as under: "14/22 The highway connecting Ambala, Kalka, Shimla, Narkanda, Rampur and Chini and proceeding to the border between India and Tibet near Shipki-La." There is no dispute that National Highway-22 is being developed and maintained by the Public Works Department of the State Government, therefore, it is the responsibility of the State Government to maintain this National Highway. Websters Third New International Dictionary (Volume II, p. 1362) defines ‘maintain’: "to keep in a state of repair, efficiency, or validity : preserve from failure or decline : to sustain against opposition or danger." The learned Counsel for the petitioners rightly placed reliance on 1938 (3) All ER 93, Newsome v. Barton U. D. C. ; 1941 (3) All ER 332, Laurie v. Raglan Building Co, Ltd, ; 1945 (2) All ER 458, Fisher v. Ruislip Northwood Urban District Council and County Council of Middlesex ; 194? (2) All ER 264, Hyett v. Great Western Railway Company ; 1950 (1) AU ER 737, Jacobs v. London County Council, to contend that ocoapier, authority incharge of the road or causing any obstruction or annoyance is liable for negligence to the aggrieved party since it is their duty to take due care of the premises or highways so that by their action injury is not caused to any one making use of them. 14. Turning to the facts of this case, it has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that the maintenance of National Highway-22 was the responsibility of Public Works Department. 14. Turning to the facts of this case, it has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that the maintenance of National Highway-22 was the responsibility of Public Works Department. It was widening the road at this point for which purpose labour had been deployed It could be within its knowledge that widening of road during rainy season was lively to effect the fragile soil by excavation. It could be noticed that there was impact of cloud burst and signs of earthquake a couple of days back. Adequate precautions ought to have been taken by respondent-2 against the falling of boulders and debris from the mountainous region into the road. There was no red-flag or sign-board giving warning to the, passengers against the danger and not to approach the site. It failed to instruct the labourers, riving at a short distance, to keep watch over the area and the highway and restrain the passengers from going to the site. In case such safeguards had been taken, so many lives could have been saved. Instead of the labour of respondent-2 coming out either to warn the passengers or to help them, the passengers were left to take initiative themselves during the night after remaining stranded for a long time They knew nothing about the topography of the area, neither of the soil, sliding of the mountain, occurrence of cloud burst and earthquake, otherwise they could not have taken such a step. The facts plainly demonstrate that the action of respondent-2 in tinkering with the soil and resorting to blasting of rocks for widening the road, directly resulted in the incident. It is difficult to comprehend and accept that they were not responsible for the same since the accident had taken place all of a sudden and due to factors beyond their control, Consequently, negligence on the part of Respondents 1 and 2 is established. 15. The next question is about the determination of compensation in this case. The husband of petitioner-1 was Upper Division Clerk in State Electricity Board. His monthly salary at that time was Rs. 3018 His age was 39 years. He left his wife and three minor children. The petitioners have claimed compensation of rupees ten lac in this case, but no principle of law was brought to our notice for claiming this amount. The husband of petitioner-1 was Upper Division Clerk in State Electricity Board. His monthly salary at that time was Rs. 3018 His age was 39 years. He left his wife and three minor children. The petitioners have claimed compensation of rupees ten lac in this case, but no principle of law was brought to our notice for claiming this amount. However, it was submitted that the principle for awarding compensation under the motor accident claims may be of some assistance in cases of this nature. We think, this approach may help in determining the compensation coupled with application of some guess work. The deceased was earning Rs. 3018 per month as an Upper Division Clerk with State Electricity Board. He was quite young at that time and had, therefore, chances of further promotion. At the time of his death in this accident, all his children were young requiring maintenance and education for many years. Petifcioner-1 was only a JBT teacher in a village school. Two daughters were studying in Senior Secondary School, Portraore, Shimla and were staying in the boarding house while the minor son was hardly four year old at that time. Receiving education at Shimla and staying in the boarding house required spending of substantial amount. The deceased was serving in the tribal belt of the State where the expenditure on oneself is quite minimal for lack of the availability of different kinds of articles normally available in urban areas. Consequently, contribution of the deceased towards the family could not be less than Rs. 2,500 per month and the family was to receive it for at least twenty years more, till the children could grow and become self-sufficient. In this way, reasonable amount of compensation would come to rupees six lac as against rupees ten lac claimed by the petitioners. In our opinion, this mach of compensation is quite appropriate and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 16. No other point was urged by the learned Counsel for the parties. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay rupees six lac to the petitioners within a period of two months from today failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The petitioners would be entitled to compensation equally. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay rupees six lac to the petitioners within a period of two months from today failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The petitioners would be entitled to compensation equally. The shares of the minors will be invested in fixed deposit with a nationalised bank till they attain majority. Costs on parties. Writ petition allowed. -