Judgement The petitioner who is a poor and illiterate cultivator of 65 years has come up before this Court by means of this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay him a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for the tragic death of his 21 years old son on 23-8-1988 in his village, namley, Tungou due to electrocution as his long waiting for about five years to get monetary help from the respondents ultimately turned out barren and sterile. 2. I have heard Miss. R.K. Sanatombi Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. L. Shyamkishore Singh, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties the facts material for the purpose of disposal of this application may be stated as under :- The case of the petitioner is that his family consisted of his wife, three sons and one daughter and he used to earn the livelihood of the family by cultivation with the help of his sons. It is stated that virtually his two major sons, namely, A.S. Nganaomi and A.S. Mathew (deceased) were maintaining the family by doing cultivation works and some timber business. But on 23-8-1988 at about 10 a.m. when his second son, namely, A.S. Mathew was proceeding towards the paddy field along with others he was suddenly electrocuted in a domestic power line post which was erected in the heart of their village and he died in a split of moment. It is alleged that the electric post from which the petitioners son was electrocuted was erected in the heart of the village and prior to this incident some domestic animals were electrocuted from the same electric post and this fact was brought to the notice of the authorities. But the authorities turned a deaf-ear to the complaints that were made by the village headman. 4. After this incident a villager, namely, A.S. Kahangpam submitted a complaint to the Office-in-Charge, Ukhrul Police Station alleging that death of A.S. Mathew was caused due to shear negligence of the Electricity Department of the Ukhrul Division which had been warned of the danger time and again about this electric pole. 4. After this incident a villager, namely, A.S. Kahangpam submitted a complaint to the Office-in-Charge, Ukhrul Police Station alleging that death of A.S. Mathew was caused due to shear negligence of the Electricity Department of the Ukhrul Division which had been warned of the danger time and again about this electric pole. On the basis of this complaint (Annexure A/1) Ukhrul P.S. registered a case being U.D. Case No. 7/88 and in course of investigation the Investigating Officer sent the dead body of A.S. Mathew to the Medical Officer for post mortem examination which showed that the deceased died due to electrocution on the aforesaid date and time. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application to the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Ukhrul Division (Annexure A/4) for payment of ex gratia compensation to the bereaved family. But he did not get any favourable response. So, he approached the Honble Minister (Power) and also the local M.L.A. But even though the Executive Engineer assured the petitioner that he would get some ex gratia payment as compensation and that his eldest son would also be given a job, neither the Executive Engineer nor the authority paid any amount as ex gratia or offered any job to his eldest son. So, ultimately the petitioner approached this Court by this application for the reliefs as stated above. 5. The respondents resisted this writ petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been denied that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the Electricity Department. It has however, been averred that on that day there was a heavy rain fall with strong wind at about 1030 a.m. and as a result thereof high tension pole at Tungou village tilted towards a nearby low tension pole and incidentally the live high tension line touched the low tension pole and when deceased happened to touch that charged low tension pole on his way to the paddy field, he was electrocuted and died. It has, therefore, been stated that the incident occurred not because that the Electricity Department was at fault but because of something which one cannot predict or foresee. It is stated that it is nothing but an act of God and hence it is duty of every body to take care more specifically when there is a heavy storm. It has, therefore, been stated that the incident occurred not because that the Electricity Department was at fault but because of something which one cannot predict or foresee. It is stated that it is nothing but an act of God and hence it is duty of every body to take care more specifically when there is a heavy storm. The further contention of the respondents is that the electric post and over head lines were erected in strict compliance with Rules 80(1)(a) and 80(2)(a) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. It is denied that allegations were made previously regarding the danger of his electric post for over-head line. It has also been contended that there is no specific rule for payment of ex gratia for such accidental death and that the accident would not have occurred if the deceased would not touch the electric pole. Hence 50% of the accident was contributed by the deceased. The respondents have, therefore, stated that under the circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. 6. It would be quite apparent from the pleadings of the parties as stated above that the petitioners son, namely, A.S. Mathew died on 23-8-1988 at about 1030 a.m. due to electrocution as he happened to touch the electric post that was erected in the village, Tungou. It is also not, denied that the petitioner approached the respondent No. 4 for compensation and even though the respondent No. 4 gave some assurance to the petitioner he ultimately paid nothing to the petitioner. 7. Miss. R.K. Sanatombi Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has, at the very outset, submitted that the contention of the respondents that there was a storm on that day at the relevant time is not at all supported by the documents filed by the respondents. It is submitted by Miss Sanatombi Devi that the police report will clearly indicate that the son of the petitioner died on account of electrocution and there is no whisper in the police report that on the date of accident at the relevant time there was a heavy storm as contended by the respondents. It is submitted by Miss Sanatombi Devi that the police report will clearly indicate that the son of the petitioner died on account of electrocution and there is no whisper in the police report that on the date of accident at the relevant time there was a heavy storm as contended by the respondents. As already stated, it will appear from para 4 of the counter affidavit that one high tension pole which was erected in that village tilted towards a nearby low tension pole and as a result thereof a live high tension line touched the low tension pole. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to this incident there were a few more incidents when some domestic animals were electrocuted and this fact was brought to the notice of the Electricity Department but no effective action was taken to repair the line. Mr. L. Shyamkishore Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has, on the other hand, contended that there was no negligence on the part of the Electricity Department as the incident occurred on account of the act of the God. The precise submission of Mr. Shaymkishore is that the burden is on the petitioner to prove that the death of the deceased was occasioned on account of the negligence on part of the Electricity Department and that burden cannot be discharged by simply proving that the deceased died on account of electrocution. According to Mr. Shamkishore it has to be shown affirmatively that there was some dereliction of duty on the part of the Electricity Department. 8. Now as regards the contention of Mr. Shyamkishore that there was a heavy storm at the relevant time it may be mentioned here that police report under Annexure A shows that during investigation the Invetigating Officer visited the spot and found the deceased in that place. It has been specifically mentioned in the report that the deceased died on account of electrocution when he was proceeding to attend his duty at Tungou village. The Investigating Officer also prepared the inquest report. But this police report does not indicate in any manner that on that date at that time there was a heavy storm and due to storm the high tension pole tilted. Mr. The Investigating Officer also prepared the inquest report. But this police report does not indicate in any manner that on that date at that time there was a heavy storm and due to storm the high tension pole tilted. Mr. Shyamkishore has, however, produced the relevant file before me and drawn my attention to the report of the Executive Engineer to show that there was a heavy storm and due to that storm the high tension pole tilted towards the low tension pole. This report which is available at page 82 of the file viz File No. 1/7(1)/92-IPED shows that the report was prepared by one Ch. Ibopishak Singh. This report also shows that it was endorsed to O.S. by the Executive Engineer. But there is nothing in the file to show that O.S., on the basis of this report, submitted any note to the higher authority. The file does not even casually show that this report was, as per the procedure, brought to the notice of the Chief Engineer, Electrical. What transpires from the file is that this file was opend soon after receipt of the notice of the writ petition. I am, therefore, unable to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the respondents. The file namely, File No. 1/7(1)/92-IPED which has been produced before me does not indicate that any note sheet was prepared and higher authorities paid any attention to this matter to ascertain whether there was any storm or not and whether there was any laches/negligence on the part of the concerned authority about repairing the pole. 9. It has already been stated that there is no dispute that deceased A.S. Mathew died on the aforesaid date due to electrocution. So, in the background of the facts stated above there must be a presumption of fact that there was a lack of proper care on the part of those who are responsible for the management and control of the power supply system. The maxim res ipsa loquitur is a principle which aids the Court for deciding as to the stage at which the onus shifts from one side to the other. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act gives wide discretion to the court to draw presumption of fact based on different situation and circumstances. 10. The maxim res ipsa loquitur is a principle which aids the Court for deciding as to the stage at which the onus shifts from one side to the other. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act gives wide discretion to the court to draw presumption of fact based on different situation and circumstances. 10. Supreme Court in the case Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, 1980 ACJ 38 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1848 ) dealt with the scope and applicability of the maxim res ipsa loquitur and observed that "res ipsa loquitur (thing speaks for itself) is a principle which, in reality, belongs to the law of Torts." It has been further observed that at page 1852 (of AIR) "as a rule mere proof that an event has happened or an accident has occurred, the cause of which is unknown, is not evidence of negligence. But the peculiar circumstances constituting the event or accident, in a particular case, may themselves proclaim in concordant, clear and unambiguous voice the negligence of somebody as the cause of the event or accident. It is to such cases that the maxim res ipsa loquitur may apply, if the cause of the accident is unknown and no reasonable explanation as to the cause is coming forth from the defendant. To emphasise the point, it may be reiterated that in such cases, the event or accident must be a kind which does not happen in the ordinary course of things if those who have management and control use due care. But, according to some decisions, satisfaction of this condition alone is not sufficient for res ipsa to come into play and it has to be further satisfied that the event which caused the accident was within the defendants control. The reason for this second requirement is that where the defendant has control of the thing which caused the injury, he is in a better position than the plaintiff to explain how the accident occurred." It has also been observed by their Lordships that : "there is a marked difference as to the effect of evidence, viz. the proof, in Civil and Criminal proceedings. the proof, in Civil and Criminal proceedings. In Civil proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt, but in Criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the mind of the court, as a reasonable man beyond all reasonable doubt ......." 11. As pointed out by Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions. "Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability, is not enough for liability under the Criminal Law." 12. It would thus be apparent from the above observation of the Supreme Court that where in a criminal case negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence that has to be established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, in cases where civil liability is concerned, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient. 13. In Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co., (1865) 3 H and C 596, Erle, C.J. in the said case observed as under :- "Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care." 14. Keeping the above principles of law in view I may now proceed to ascertain if the petitioner has discharged his burden by establishing the fact that his son A.S. Mathew was electrocuted for the negligence on the part of the management of the respondents or their servants. 15. It has been stated under para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition that the electric post and over-head lines were erected and fixed in compliance with the provisions laid down under Rule 80(1)(a) and Rule 80(2)(a) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. Rule 80 may, therefore, be quoted as under :- "Clearance from buildings of high and extra high voltage line. 15. It has been stated under para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition that the electric post and over-head lines were erected and fixed in compliance with the provisions laid down under Rule 80(1)(a) and Rule 80(2)(a) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. Rule 80 may, therefore, be quoted as under :- "Clearance from buildings of high and extra high voltage line. - (1) where a high or extra high voltage overhead line passes above or adjacent to any building or part of a building it shall have on the basis of maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part of the building immediately under such lines of not less than- (a) for high voltage lines including 33,000 volts. 3.58 metres (12 ft.) (b) forb extra-high voltage line. 3,658 metres (12 fit) plus 0.305 metres (1 ft) for every additional 33,000 volts or part thereof (2) The horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor and any part of such building shall, on the basis of maximum deflection due to wind pressure, be not less than - (a) for high voltage lines up to and including 11,000 volts. 1.219 metres (4 ft). (b) for high voltage lines above 11,000 volts up to and including 33,000 volts. 1.829 metres (6 ft). (c) for extra high voltage line 1.829 metres (6 ft) puls 0.305 metre (1 ft) for every additional 33,000 volts or part thereof" 16. Sub-rule (2) as quoted above shows that the horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor and any part of such building shall, on the basis of maximum deflection due to wind pressure, be not less than -- (a) for high voltage lines up to and including 11,000 volts. 1.219 metres (4 ft) (b) for high voltage lines above 11,000 volts up to and including 33,000 volts. 1.829 metres (6 ft) (c) for extra high voltage line. 1.829 metres (6 ft) plus 0.305 metre metre (1 ft) for every additional 33,000 volts or part thereof. 17. In this context Rule 74 may be looked into which prescribes the strength of an overhead line and according to Rule 74 the strength of an overhead line shall have a breaking strength of one less than 317.51 Kg. (700 1bs) and where the voltage is low and the span is of less than 15.24 metres (50 ft.) the prescribed breaking strength shall not be less than 136.08 Kg. (300 lbs). (700 1bs) and where the voltage is low and the span is of less than 15.24 metres (50 ft.) the prescribed breaking strength shall not be less than 136.08 Kg. (300 lbs). The report to which Mr. Shyamkishore has drawn my attention does not indicate that the provisions under the aforesaid Rules were strictly complied with. The reporting officer did not specifically mention that all the precautions prescribed under the aforesaid Rule were taken at the time of erection of the concerned electrical pole. Rather against item No. 13 viz.steps taken to preserve avoidance connection with the accident to the extent possible, the reporting officer has stated that rectifications of the 11 K.V. Lines are being taken. This statement clearly indicates that rectifications were necessary but those were not done till then. 18. It has already been stated above that the respondents in their counter affidavit also admitted that the petitioners son A.S. Mathew died on 23-8-1988 at about 10.30 a.m. due to electrocution. It has also been admitted under para 4 of the counter affidavit that a live high tension line touched the low tension pole. Therefore, in view of this admitted position I find that the petitioner discharged his burden by establishing that his son viz. A.S. Mathew was electrocuted from the electric pole which was charged with a live high tension line. The contents of the report available in the file at page 82, therefore, clearly show that there was lack of care on the part of the management. The statement in the report against Item No. 13 rather supports the case of the petitioner. 19. Therefore, in view of all the facts and circumstances as reveals in this case I am of the view that there was negligence on that part of the respondents in taking proper care for maintenance of the electrical pole in the village Tungou and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 20. The next question which calls for consideration is what should be the quantum of damages. It has been pointed out by several High Courts that some degree of guess work is inevitable in assessing the quantum of general damages. This is due to practical difficulties in chalking out precise data or yardsticks in assessing the amount of damages. 20. The next question which calls for consideration is what should be the quantum of damages. It has been pointed out by several High Courts that some degree of guess work is inevitable in assessing the quantum of general damages. This is due to practical difficulties in chalking out precise data or yardsticks in assessing the amount of damages. The Supreme Court in the case of C.K.S. Iyer v. T.K. Nair, 1970 ACJ 110 : ( AIR 1970 SC 376 ) (at page 115, para 13) held at page 380 (of AIR):- "There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations but the amount recoverable depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable ......... In the matter of ascertainment of damages, the appellate Court should be slow in disturbing the findings reached by the Courts below if they have taken all the relevant facts into consideration." 21. In British Transport Commission v. Gourley, (1995) 3 All ER 796, Lord Reid said :- "The general principle on which damages are assessed is not in doubt. A successful plaintiff is entitled to have awarded to him such a sum as will make a good to him the financial loss which he has suffered, and will probably suffer, as a result of the wrong done to him for which the defendant is responsible ....... Such damages can only be an estimate, often a very rough estimate of the present value of his prospective loss." 22. In American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Vol. 22, page 125, para 87, it is stated :- "Many cases have considered the effect which changes in the cost of living or the purchasing power of money should have on the amount of damages awarded in actions for personal injuries or wrongful death. The problem is presented because often the trial of the case is held several months or years after the injury, and further, the award at least where the injury is permanent compensates for injuries which will continue many years into the future. The problem is presented because often the trial of the case is held several months or years after the injury, and further, the award at least where the injury is permanent compensates for injuries which will continue many years into the future. The rule is now well settled that a Court, in determining whether an award of damages for personal injuries is proper, can consider the changes in the cost of living or, in its alternative expression, in the purchasing power of money. The Court may also take account of future prospect of inflation or deflation, in fixing personal injury damages. The basis of this rule is that compensation means compensation in money and the value of money lies not in intrinsic worth but in what it will buy. Thus, reviewing Courts state that changes in the value of money are considered in determining whether a particular award of damages is excessive or inadequate." 23. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086 : (1983 Cri LJ 1644), the Supreme Court observed at page 1089 (of AIR) :- "The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalites which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioners rights." 24. It is now a settled position of law that powers of the High Court under Art. 226 are very wide and it can compensate an aggrieved person in any reasonable manner for any loss suffered by him. 25. In the instant case there is no challenge to the fact that the petitioner used to maintain livelihood of his family by cultivation and that he being very old his two sons, namely, the eldest son and the deceased would virtually maintain the family by doing cultivation works and some other timber business. There is no dispute that the family of the petitioner consisted of six members including the deceased. There is no dispute that the family of the petitioner consisted of six members including the deceased. In an appeal in the case of Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 ACJ 283 : ( AIR 1992 SC 2069 ) the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and directed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- be paid as compensation by issuing a writ of mandamus. That was a case wherein the sewerage tank was not covered with a lid and was left open and a small boy died as result of fall into the said tank. 26. In the instant case it is necessary to mention that even though the petitioner approached the authority repeatedly but he was not paid even any amount as ex gratia. There is no dispute, in the instant case, that deceased was 21 years of age and he would do the cultivation works and timber business to earn the livelihood of the family. Therefore, this case deserves higher compensation. 27. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand I am of the view that it is a fit case where a direction should be issued to the respondents to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of this petition till realisation and accordingly I do so. The amount of compensation shall be paid within 6 (six) weeks. It will, however, be open to the State of Manipur to claim the said amount or any part thereof from any of the respondents or any other authority which may be held responsible for not taking steps in time for rectification of the defects in the electrical pole. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.