JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - One Shiba Khadia and his wife Sushila having died of accidental electrocution, their dependants who are minors invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to direct the Grid Corporation of Orissa (for short, 'the Grid Corpn.') for payment of compensation for loss of lives. 2. The case of the petitioners is, on 30.11.1993 about 4.30 p.m. both husband and wife with the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were going from their village Nuapada (a hamlet of Shankar Mouza) to the bus stand to board a bus. While passing through the paddy field Shiba Khadia came in contact with a live 11 K.V. high tension electric wire and fell down. His wife Sushila in order to save her husband suddenly caught hold of him, but she also died of the contact. 3. The opposite party Orissa State Electricity Board (and after it, the Grid Corpn.) filed a counter affidavit in which they had admitted the accidental death by electrocution but pleaded absence of negligence on the part of the organisation by stating that a bird sat on the 12th pole and thus there was a splash at the point of contact for which the wire on the top conductor snapped and fell on the paddy field, though did not touch the ground. 4. Mr. B.M. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the petitioners, though referred to several decisions but mainly relying on the decisions reported in the cases of Padma Behari Lal Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board and Another, ; Ramesh Kumar Nayak Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; and Uttam Sahoo Vs. Chairman, Orissa State Electricity Board of Another strenuously urged that the theory of res ipsa loquitur would aptly apply to the present case and the negligence on the part of the authorities being apparent, the petitioners are entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs. 6,00,000/- claimed by them. Mr. B.R. Sarangi, learned Counsel for the Grid Corporation on the other hand strenuously urged that since the case of the high tension line falling down from its top conductor is on account of the same having come in contact with a bird, no negligence can be attributed to any of the functionaries of the Grid Corporation. 5. Mr. B.R. Sarangi, learned Counsel for the Grid Corporation on the other hand strenuously urged that since the case of the high tension line falling down from its top conductor is on account of the same having come in contact with a bird, no negligence can be attributed to any of the functionaries of the Grid Corporation. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the counter affidavit and materials on record we are not satisfied with the plea taken by the opposite parties that a bird sat on the pole which resulted in snapping of the live electric wire. 6. The Investigating Officer, as it seems from the xerox copy of his spot visit report (Annexure-3), visited the spot on 30.11.1993 at 10.30 p.m. But nothing is mentioned about the bird at the spot though admittedly he found two persons lying dead. Except taking this plea in the counter, no corroborative materials are placed before this Court to support this plea. Absence of negligence on the part of the functionaries of the Grid Corpn. is also pleaded by stating that the said bird sat on the pole at about 4.30 p.m. and the accident occurred at about 5.00 p.m. and therefore this half an hour time gap was too short a time for the authorities to have the knowledge/information about the incident and to take steps to prevent any unforeseen accident. To this we may point out that this plea of non-availability of sufficient time to take recourse to any preventive measure before an accident could have been accepted, but for the fact that there is no corroborative material to support this plea that a bird sat at the precise time at 4.30 p.m. Once such a plea is taken, it was for the opposite party to establish this since the onus lay on them to prove the absence of negligence, this being a case in which the principle of res ipsa loquitur can be made applicable. Snapping of a high tension 11 K.V. live line after being detached from a firmly fixed heavy conductor is itself a factor which prima facie shows negligence on the part of the authorities. Therefore, it has been rightly held by this Court in the case of Padma Behari Lal Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board and Another referred by Mr. Snapping of a high tension 11 K.V. live line after being detached from a firmly fixed heavy conductor is itself a factor which prima facie shows negligence on the part of the authorities. Therefore, it has been rightly held by this Court in the case of Padma Behari Lal Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board and Another referred by Mr. Patnaik that the accident speaks for itself and therefore the authorities of the opposite parties were under a legal obligation to discharge the onus that they were not negligent or that they had taken adequate steps to prevent such an accident. There is no dispute over the fact that the proximate cause of death of the two persons was electric shock. 7. There is another material on record, i.e., the xerox copy of the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector, Orissa, Annexure C/2, from which it is found that after an enquiry he reached the following conclusion: ...This accident could have been avoided in case guarding had been provided below the line linking poles No. 20 and No. 21 as the passage for villagers is crossing the line at the spot as per Rule 91 of I.E. Rules, 1956. Wide publicity of the danger of touching snapped conductor should be made at regular interval to educate villagers about the dangerous consequences. Feeder H.G. fuse rods which are damaged should be replaced in Shankar S/S. 8. It was strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for the Grid Corpn. that there was no record with the authorities that the path used by the two deceased persons was a recorded path for which the overhead protective guard should have been provided. We are unable to accept this submission for the simple reason that we can hardly conceive that the path used by the two deceased persons was found to be an untrodden path which even other villagers did not use. This fact also needed to be proved by the opposite parties. This having not been done, the opposite parties cannot escape the liability. For such type of cases reliance is placed in the case of Uttam Sahoo Vs. Chairman, Orissa State Electricity Board of Another, . 9. Keeping in view the principles accepted in calculating the compensation and mode of fixation and considering that the unfortunate accident had taken away the two valuable lives of bread earners for petitioner Nos. For such type of cases reliance is placed in the case of Uttam Sahoo Vs. Chairman, Orissa State Electricity Board of Another, . 9. Keeping in view the principles accepted in calculating the compensation and mode of fixation and considering that the unfortunate accident had taken away the two valuable lives of bread earners for petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are minors and having been rendered parentless and deprived of parental love and affection, we feel it just and proper to award a consolidated compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- in all. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The opposite party Grid Corporation is directed to make the payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- to the petitioners within a period of three months from today failing which the whole amount shall carry an interest at the rate 18 per cent per annum after three months till payment. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 67,500/- (Rupees sixty-seven thousand and five hundred) each shall be kept in fixed deposit separately in any nationalised bank in the names of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 for a period of seven years and ten years respectively. Both the petitioners, if they so like will be at liberty to withdraw the quarterly interest accrued on such deposits to meet their day-to-day expenses. It would be open for them to withdraw any amount from out of the principal amount before the stipulated period from their respective deposits in order to meet the expenses for their treatment of any prolonged illness, if any, and for the marriage of petitioner No. 3 and this shall be with the permission of this Court. The balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) be paid to petitioner No. 1 to meet his as well as that of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 present expenses. P.K. Mishra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed