P. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) - The petitioner, a widow aged about 24 years having, lost her husband by electrocution due to the snapping of the electric line has invoked the extraordianry jurisdiction of this Court for compensation. ( 2 ) THE short fact of the petitioner's case is that her husband, a daily labourer, was working at remuna Bazar and on 27 8. 1996 at about 11. 00 P. M: when he was coming back from the work; near Mitraput Road, he came in contact with a live electric wire, which fell on the middle of the road and died due to electrocution. The negligence according to the petitioner, is of the Grid Corporation and its mismanagement. FIR was lodged by the brother of the petitioner. The police conducted the investigation having registered U. D. Case no. 6 of 1996, made inquest over the dead body and sent the deceased for post-mortem examination. Hence, the prayer for compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, ( 3 ) THE opp. party-Grid Corporation filed its counter disputing the claim of the petitioner. It is the stand of the opp. party-Corporation that the manner and circumstances, in which the fatal occurrence took place would itself indicate that there ,was no negligene or laches which can be attributed to the Grid Corporation authorities, Since it was an act of God. It is further "stated that there was heavy storm and torrential rain leading to thunder jolt at the time of occurrence, for which a live electric wire was snapped and fallen on the road. It is further stated that a two phased three-wire electric line runs from Remuna Sub-station towards. Remuna Police Station and passes besides the road, there are big tress by the side of the road but the lines are drawn normally 6" away from the side of the road. In the mid-night of the alleged date of occurrence, i,e. on 27. 8. 1996, a big branch of the tree snatched out from the; tree and fell on the existing' electric line as a result one of the conductors snapped from the electric pole. It is further stated that at about 11. 45 P. M. on 27. 8. 1996, some unknown persons intimated the Junior Engineer, Electrical, Remuna over telephone regarding the incident. 1996, a big branch of the tree snatched out from the; tree and fell on the existing' electric line as a result one of the conductors snapped from the electric pole. It is further stated that at about 11. 45 P. M. on 27. 8. 1996, some unknown persons intimated the Junior Engineer, Electrical, Remuna over telephone regarding the incident. The Junior engineer went to the spot with the staff in the dreadful night and saw that the snapped conductor was dead and the fuse in the Substation was already blown out. Necessary F. I. R. lodged at the Remuna Police Station: The Grid corporation authorites are no way concerned about the family position of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner could have filed a representation before the Chief Minister of the state claiming for financial help, because of untimely death, of her husband or she could have filed representation before the Collector claimining the Social Security amount since the same is being granted to family dependents of the deceased who meets such premature and untimely, death because of no fault of any body else. ( 4 ) IN view of the pleadings of the parties an aforesaid, the fact that on 27. 8. 1996 at about 11. 00 P. M. the deceased husband of the petitioner came in contact with the live electric wire, which fell on the road due to the heavy rain and thunder and as a result of electrocution, the deceased husband of the petitioner died, is not disputed. The post-mortem report, a 'copy of which is Annexure-3 indicates the cause of death was cardiac arrest due to electric shock and the time of death is within 48 hours of the post-mortem examination. What the oppl parties claim is that since it was an act of God, where the opp. party-Grid Corporation had no hand, the Corporation has no liability whatsoever and that the electric poles and wites were being maintained properly from time to time with regular intervals and the deceased died due to his carelessness. The plea of act of God claimining no responsibility by the Orissa State Electricity Board came to be Considered by this Court in A: Krishna patra v, Orissa State Electricity Board and ors. The plea of act of God claimining no responsibility by the Orissa State Electricity Board came to be Considered by this Court in A: Krishna patra v, Orissa State Electricity Board and ors. , Uttam Sahu v. Chairman, Orissa State electricity Board and Smt. Rajani Devi v. Chairman, Orissa State Electricity Board and this Court held that the law is clear that the electrical authorities are to take special precautions in operations connected with the transmission of energy through overhead lines. In case of allegations of breach thereof and where claim is made that due to the negligence of authorities, the accident occuced, the burden is on such authorities to establish that they have taken all precautionary measures to prevent such accident and in spite of such precaution, the snapping of line occurred. In absence. of such materials placed on record, the authorities cannot escape the liability to compensate the victims of such accident. It was the duty of the opp. parties to see that the mechanically unsound and weak conductor is replaced and proper maintenance is made looking to the result and consequence, which is likely to follow, if such a conductor snaps and the line does not become electrically harmless and due to such snapping, the death of a person results. that would itself be a ground for inferring negligence to the electrical authorities. ( 5 ) LAW is well settled that where a party pleads immunity because of the inevitable accident or the act of God, it is that party to prove by placing sufficient materials on record what steps strictly in accordance with the protective measure were taken by it and all precautions are taken to prevent. the probable accident. Sirnply saying that this is an act of god where the electrical authorities have no hand to play, could hot absolve the authorities form compensating the wrong. ( 6 ) SECTION 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides that if any" accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, supply or use of energy in or in connection, with,. Sirnply saying that this is an act of god where the electrical authorities have no hand to play, could hot absolve the authorities form compensating the wrong. ( 6 ) SECTION 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides that if any" accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, supply or use of energy in or in connection, with,. any part of the electric supply-lines or other works of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused. by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector and to such other authorities as the appropriate Government may by general or special order, direct. Thereafter the appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector, or any other competent person, appointed by it in this behalf, to inquire and report - (a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, supply or use of energy; or (b) as to the manner in and extent to which the. provisions of this Act of of any licence or rulesd there under, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with etc. ( 7 ) RULE 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 provides as follows :"91. Safety and protective devices- (1) Every over-head line (not being suspended from, a dead bearer wire and not being covered with insulating "material and not being a trolley-wire erected over and part of street o'r other public place or in any factory or mine or on any ocnsumer's premises) shall be projected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks. (2) An Inspector may by notice in writing require the owner of any such overhead line wherever it may be erected to protect it in the manner specified in Sub-rule (1) (3) The owner of every high and extrahigh voltage over head line shall make adequate arrangements to the satisfaction of the Inspector to prevent unauthorised persons from ascending any of the support of such over head lines which can be easily climbed upon without the help of a ladder or special appliances. Rails, reinforced cement concrete poles and pre-stressed cement concrete poles/without steps, tubular poles, wooden supports without steps, l-Sections and channels shall be deemed as supports which cannot be easily clirnbed upon for the purpose of this rule. "in view of the aforesaid provisions of law, where there is allegation of negligence resulting in death of an innocent person, the Grid Corporation has to satisfy the Court it had taken all reasonable dispatch in ensuring compliance with all precautionary measures to avoid any possible accident. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the Grid Corporation had taken all necessary precautions to avoid any accident and that in spite of all such measures, the inevitable accident has occurred. The allegation that the deceased came in contact with the live wire on the road snapped off from the line and that he was electrocuted has not been disputed inasmuch as nothing has been said regarding the steps taken to ensure disconnection of the electricity in the event of snapping or break down. Thus, the plea of the Grid Corporation that this was an act of god, and therefore, it has no negligene to incur liability cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) THEN we can come to the question of compensation. Regard being had to the age of the deceased, his dependants, the income and the fact and situation of the case, we are of the considered view that a compensation of rs. 65,000/- (Sixty five thousand) Shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, it is ordered that the opp. party - Grid Corporation shall pay a sum of Rs. 65. 000/- (sixty five thousands) to the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of this brder. ( 9 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent. indicated. There shall be no order as to cost. " writ petition allowed. .