PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) WIDOW and son of one Dharani Behera (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') have filed this writ application for a direction to the Orissa State Electricity Board (in short, 'oseb'), which was subsequently taken over by the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (in short, the 'gridco') for payment of compensation towards death of Dharani. ( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts as projected by the petitioners are as follows :high Tension Electric line passes over the land of decease in village Salakhuruni and due to heavy cyclone on or about 27-6-1992 one of the lines snapped and fell on fields. The deceased had gone to his fields to work and came in contest with the high voltage live line lying on his fields and was electrocuted and immediately succumbed to death in the early hours of 29-6-1992. Petitioner No. 1 is pardanashin lady and petitioner No. 2 being a small boy, did not know what to do. However, some benevolent persons of the village carried the deceased to nearby hospital. Report was lodged by the Doctor at Sunakhala out post and subsequently the information was transmitted to Bolgarh Police Station. It is the case of petitioners that the accident occurred due to negligence of the workers of the Gridco who did not attend to the repair of snapped links soon after the cyclone, and even did not disconnect the supply of electricity though the concerned authorities had knowledge about the snapping of the wire. ( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed it is stated that no compensation is payable as claimed because the snapping of electric wire was due to cyclone and there was no negligence involved. Due to heavy cyclone the wire had snapped and repair work was done on 25-6-1992 and 29-6-1992 as is evident from the general maintenance work register of Bankol Fuse Call Centre. It is stated that the alleged accident occurred on 29-6-1992 and from the register it is found that due to storm the electric pole was bent down as there was snapping of conductor at 9. 25 a. m. and after repairing the same power was supplied at 6. 40 pm. In village Khauruni on 30-6-1992 at 8. 35 a. m. there was no fuse at the sub-station. After drawing the wire, the supply was given at 9. 25 a. m. and after repairing the same power was supplied at 6. 40 pm. In village Khauruni on 30-6-1992 at 8. 35 a. m. there was no fuse at the sub-station. After drawing the wire, the supply was given at 9. 20 a. m. It is stated that the snapping of the wire was due to cyclone and the accident can be linked with the act of God and no negligence was involved. It is further stated that all possible steps had been taken to prevent any mishap and therefore, the Gridco should not be saddled with any liability. ( 4 ) PREVENTIVE measure suggested to be taken may provide safety in future. Those cannot be pressed into service to deny liability of the Gridco. The term 'compensation' as stated in the Oxford Dictionary, signifies that this is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered. 'damages' on the other hand constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss of injury sustained, the value estimated in money, or something lost or withheld. The term 'compensation' etymologically suggests the image of balancing one thing against another; its primary signification is equivalence, and the secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent. Pecuniary damages are to be valued on the basis of 'full compensation'. That concept was first stated by Lord Blackborn in Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co. , (1860) 5 AC 25. ( 5 ) THE 'rule of Law' requires that the wrongs should not remain unredressed. All the individuals or persons committing wrongs should be liable to an action for damages for breach of civil law or for criminal punishment. Law of torts is founded on the principle that every injury must have a remedy. 'compensation' means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given or to make amends for loss, recognise, remuneration or pay, it need not, therefore, necessarily be in terms of money, because law may specify principles on which and manner in which a compensation is to be determined as given. 'compensation' means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given or to make amends for loss, recognise, remuneration or pay, it need not, therefore, necessarily be in terms of money, because law may specify principles on which and manner in which a compensation is to be determined as given. Compensation is an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person damnified may receives equal value for his loss; or be (sic) whole in respect of his injury, something given or obtained as equivalent; rendering of equivalent in value or amount, an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another, a recompense in value a recompensese given for thing receive recompense for whole injury suffered; remuneration or satisfaction for injury of damage or every description. The expression 'compensation' is not ordinarily used as an equivalent to 'damage' although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damages in an action for a breach. The term 'compensation' as pointed out in the Oxford Dictionary signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered, 'damages' on the other hand constitute the sum of money, claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained. 'compensation' is a return for a loss or damages sustained. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. 'amends' is return for something that is faulty in ourselves or towards others, 'satisfaction' is that which satisfies the individual requiring it, is given for personal injuries, and may be made either by a return or otherwise, according to disposition of the person to be satisfied. "recompense' is a voluntary return for a voluntary service, it is made from generous feeling and derives its value not so much from the magnitude or service of return, as from intention of the parties towards each other, and it is received not so much as a matter of right as of courtesy. 'remuneration' is not voluntary as recompense, but it is equally indefinite, being estimated rather according to condition of the person and dignity of service than its positive worth. 'requital' is the return of kindness, the making it is an act of gratitude. 'remuneration' is not voluntary as recompense, but it is equally indefinite, being estimated rather according to condition of the person and dignity of service than its positive worth. 'requital' is the return of kindness, the making it is an act of gratitude. 'reward' may be a bad return when it is inadequate to the merits of the person. In cases of assessment of damages pure mathematics cannot be relied on exclusively to arrive at a reasonable estimate of just compensation, for much pertains to the realms of hypothesis, and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master and therefore, an award should be of a round sum rather than one actually computed. (Per Lord Rutton, J. in Ball v. Kraft, 1967 ACJ 235 (Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ). The following broad principles govern the grant of damages; (1) There should not be any negligence on the part of the claimant himself. (2) There should not be any improper conduct on the part of the claimant himself. (3) The claimant should have taken all the reasonable action to maintain the loss or injury sustained by him. (4) The acts of the claimant should be lawful, just and reasonable. (5) The amount of damages should not exceed the loss sustained by him, and such damages may be minimised if own conduct has resulted contributory negligence, or has rendered some of the damage too remote or has constituted a failure to mitigate the damages, either by not taking such steps to reduce the original loss or to avert further loss. ( 6 ) IT is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique frame that has been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Morris in West (H) and Son v. Shephard, 1964 AC 326, Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind, object or providing compensation is to place claimant as far as possible in the same position financially, as he was before accident. Broadly speaking, in the case of death basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses, etc. and loss to the estate. Object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Broadly speaking, in the case of death basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses, etc. and loss to the estate. Object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive, nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring value of human life and measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation but amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor it should be a source of profit of the person in whose favour it is a awarded. Upjohn LJ in Charter House Credit Co. v. Tolly, (1963) 2 QB 623 remarked the assessment of damages has never been an exact science; it is essentially practical'. ( 7 ) IT is pleaded by the opposite parties that there was no negligence involved. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would seem to apply to the facts of the case. It is explained in a very illustrative passage in Clerk and Lindsell on Torts which reads as follows :"doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The onus of proof which lies on a party alleging negligence is, as pointed out, that he should establish his case by a preponderance of probabilities. This he will normally have to do by providing that the other party acted carelessly. Such evidence is not always forthcoming. It is possible, however, in certain cases for him to rely on the mere fact that something happened as affording prima facie evidence of want of due care on the other's parts 'res ipsa loquitur' is a principle which helps him to do so'. In effect, therefore, reliance on it is a confession by the plaintiff that he has no affirmative evidence of negligence. The classic statement of the circumstances in which he is able to do is by Brle C. J. ;'there must be reasonable evidence of negligence. In effect, therefore, reliance on it is a confession by the plaintiff that he has no affirmative evidence of negligence. The classic statement of the circumstances in which he is able to do is by Brle C. J. ;'there must be reasonable evidence of negligence. But 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". It is no more than rule of evidence and states no principle of law. "this convenient and succinct formula", says Morris L. J. , "possesses no magic qualities, nor has it any added virtue, other than that of brevity, merely because it is expressed in Latin. 'it is only a convenient label to apply to a set of circumstances in which a plaintiff proves a case so as to call for a rebuttal from the defendant without having to allege and prove any specific act or omission on the part of the defendant. It merely proves a result, not any particular act or omission producing the result. The Court hears only the plaintiff's side of the story, and if that makes it more probable than not that the occurrence was caused by the negligence of the defendants, the doctrine res ipsa loquitur is said to apply, and the plaintiff will be entitled to succeed unless the defendant by evidence rebuts those probabilities. It is not necessary for res ipsa loquitar to be specifically pleaded. "reference may be made to another passage from the same book which reads as follows :"liability to children. An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. Something which would not be a danger to an adult may very well be one to a child, and a warning sufficient for an adult may be insufficient for a child. In Moleney v. Lambeth London Borough Council, an occupier was held liable to a four year old boy who fell through the bare of a balustrade. If a person the size of the plaintiff lost his balance he was liable to go through the gap. In Moleney v. Lambeth London Borough Council, an occupier was held liable to a four year old boy who fell through the bare of a balustrade. If a person the size of the plaintiff lost his balance he was liable to go through the gap. The staircase did not comply with the occupier's duty of care to a child of the age. But in Ward v. Hortfordshire Co. , it was held there was no liability to a child aged eight who fell against a long standing brick and flint wall in a school's play ground. The wall was not inherently dangerous and the presence of a supervisor would not have prevented the accident. " ( 8 ) THE question of negligence of a company engaged in transmission of electric energy was considered in Suchee Railway, Light, Heat, Power Company, Ltd. v. Vandry, 1920 AC 662. The concerned railway company in exercise of statutory powers had erected two overhead cables for the distribution of electric current. In that case, on account of a violent wind, a branch from a tree growing about 28 feet away from the cables was broken, which resulted in the breaking down on the cables and the high tension current found its way along with the low tension cable into the respondents' premises and caused a fire. An action for damages was brought by the respondents against the concerned power company. The Court of appeal held that the company was liable for the damage without proof that it had been negligent, since it had failed to establish that it could not have prevented the escape of the electric current. Further that its statutory power afforded no defence, since the escape of the current was not necessarily incident to the exercise of those powers. ( 9 ) IN Erusian Equipment and Chemical Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 266 , the Court while dealing with the question of invalidity of action of the Government in black listing a contractor without giving him an opportunity of hearing also dealt with the larger question of the manner in which contracts by the State need to be awarded. In this regard it held as follows :"it is true that neither the petitioner nor the respondent has any right to enter into a contract but they are entitled to equal treatment with others who offer tender or quotations for the purchase of the goods. This privilege arises because it is the Government which is trading with the public and the democratic form of Government demands quality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination in such transactions. Nonfled treats privileges as a form of liberty as opposed to a duty - The activities of the Government have a public element and, therefore, there should be fairness and equality. The State need not enter into any contract with any one but if it does, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure. " ( 10 ) THE expression 'act of God' signifies the operations of natural force free from human intervention, such as lighting. It may be thought to include such unexpected occurrences of nature as severe gales snowstoms hurricanes, cyclones and tidal bures and the like. But every unexpected wind and storm does not operate as an excuse from liability, if there is a reasonable pos-sibility of anticipating their happening. An act of God provides no excuse, unless it is a unexpected that no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate the occurrence, having regard to the conditions of time and place known to be prevailing at. For instance, where by experience of a number of years, the railway administration knows that in a particular area during a particular season there have been heavy downpours of rain and consequent extraordinary floods causing damage to their t rack, they cannot take the plea, that they were due to act of God because it is within their competence to take such steps as would prevent damage. Lord Westbury defined act of God (dawnum fatals in Scotch Law) as an occurrence which no human forsight can provide against and of which human prudence as not bound to recognise the possibility. This appears to be the nearest approach to the true meaning of act of God Lord Westbury's definition was approved by Lord Deudia and Shaw in the House of Lords in Are nock Corporation v. Galedesion Dy. similarly, Lord Blendaburgh spoke of it as 'an irresistible and unsearchable providence nullifying all human effort". This appears to be the nearest approach to the true meaning of act of God Lord Westbury's definition was approved by Lord Deudia and Shaw in the House of Lords in Are nock Corporation v. Galedesion Dy. similarly, Lord Blendaburgh spoke of it as 'an irresistible and unsearchable providence nullifying all human effort". That principle has no application to the case at hand. The term 'act of God' (vis major) is used in English law to mean some act or convulsion of nature, so extraordinary that it could not be foreseen; or if foreseen could not be guarded against, for example, an extraordinary high tide, a tempest of rare violence, and the like. In the biblical sense of term, everything almost is said to be the act of God; but in a mercantile sense, it means an extraordinary circumstance which could not be foresen and which could not be guarded against (per Eshor M. R. in 55 LJ QB 548 ). ( 11 ) IT need not be emphasised that great care and caution is expected from the Electricity Board in laying, installing and maintaining overhead wires carrying heavy load of electric energy as these are dangerous. Generally those wires should not snap and fall on the ground. In case this happens, to our mind, unless rebutted, an inference can be drawn that there has been carelessness and negligence on the part of the Electricity Board in the maintenance of overhead lines. Needless to say, the Electricity Board is also required to take necessary precautions against the danger of overhead lines, snapping and falling on the ground. Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, inter alia, provides as follows :"91. Safety and protective Devices; (1) Every overhead line (not being suspended from a dead bearer wire and not being covered with insulating material and not being a trolleywire erected over and part of street or other public place or in any factory or mine or on any consumer's premises shall be projected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electricity harmless in case it breaks. " ( 12 ) IN the instant case, the defence plea that because of the strong wind and stormy weather, a conductor slipped from the pin-binding and consequently the live wire hung on the ground cannot absolve the Electricity Board of its negligence. " ( 12 ) IN the instant case, the defence plea that because of the strong wind and stormy weather, a conductor slipped from the pin-binding and consequently the live wire hung on the ground cannot absolve the Electricity Board of its negligence. There is nothing to indicate that the mishap was a result of vis major. Overhead lines should not normally snap or hang on the road nor should a conductor slip from the pin binding due to wind and rain. To our mind, it discloses lack of proper supervision and maintenance. The burden, in such case would be on the Gridco to prove that adequate precautions, proper care and maintenance were being carried. In the absence of any material, the negligence of Gridco can be inferred. In such a case, the Gridco becomes liable for its negligence. ( 13 ) THE residual question is the compensation. There is some dispute about age of the deceased. Considering the materials on record, it can be said that the deceased was in his mid thirties. Taking into consideration the said age, we feel compensation of Rs. 65,000/- would be reasonable. Out of the said amount Rs. 50,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of five years in the names of petitioners, and the balance amount shall be paid to the petitioner No. 1 on being identified by any of the learned counsel appearing for her. The payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be made within three months from today, and after the same is deposited the fixed deposit and payment as directed shall be made. No withdrawal shall be permitted against the fixed deposit within the stipulated period of five years. However, this Court on being moved by the petitioners and on being satisfied about the urgent need for money, may permit withdrawal of such amount, which according to it would meet the requirement. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ( 14 ) P. C. NAIK, J. : -. I agree. Order accordingly. .