Judgement N. C. JAIN, J. :- This First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court by which the suit of the minor boy for compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realisation has been decreed. 2. The appeal has been filed by the Assam State Electricity Board, Guwahati, (2) The Chairman, Assam State Electricity Board, (3) The Executive Engineer, Tinsukia Electrical Division, Tinsukia, and (4) The Assistant Executive Engineer, Bordubi Electrical Sub-Division, P.O. Bordubi, District-Tinsukia. 3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that a high voltage i.e. 11,000 volts Electricity overhead electric line (conductor line) fell below its overhead feeder for quite sometime before the date of occurrence in the open field near the Derial Tea Garden Hospital and that the same was hanging just 3 ft. above the ground when the plaintiff aged 11 years was playing there at 3 p.m. on 18-1-92 along with his friends. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he suddenly came into contact with the aforesaid high voltage line as a result of which he sustained severe injuries including burn injuries. The father of the plaintiff having been informed by the plaint himself took the plaintiff to the Oil India Hospital when he was in unconscious condition. Ultimately the plaintiff was taken to Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh after he was administered first-aid. The further case of the plaintiff is that his two fingers of right hand had to be amputated. The plaintiff suffered mental shock and that there was a possibility of his mental retardness. Since the plaintiff sustained injuries on account of criminal negligence of the employees of the Assam State Electricity Board and since they did not do the rectification in utter disregard for public safety, the plaintiff had suffered entitling him to the grant of compensation. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether high voltage transmitting line referred in this suit was hanging just 3 ft. above the grounds due to the fault and negligence of the defendants? 4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether high voltage transmitting line referred in this suit was hanging just 3 ft. above the grounds due to the fault and negligence of the defendants? 4. Whether the plaintiff sustained severe injuries by contacting with the said hanging line? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation from the defendants as claimed in the plaint? 6. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 5. The trial Court found issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff holding that he had cause of action. The suit was held to be maintainable under issue No. 2. Under issue No. 3 it was found that the electric wire was hanging at the relevant time and place and the same was due to the fault and negligence of the defendants. It was further held that the conduct of the defendant authorities in not holding any enquiry into the occurrence even after receipt of the lawyers notice attributed to the careless and negligence on their part and that on account of accident the boy became handicapped. Under issue No. 4 it was found that the plaintiff did suffer severe injuries on account of his contact with the hanging line and that the plaintiff had to remain in the indoor patient in the hospital for about three (3) months where he was operated several times. It has further been found that his two fingers of the right hand had to be amputated. The right arm from above his wrist had become invalid. The left elbow, head and the leg, it has been found by the trial Court also received injuries. It is worth noticing that it has come in evidence that the plaintiff had become handicapped mentally and physically and has become incapable of writing and doing any work. Under issue Nos. 5 and 6 the plaintiff is held entitled to the grant of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest as has been noticed in the beginning of the judgment. 6. Mr. N. N. Saikia, learned Sr. Advocate representing the appellants has argued only one point before us. Under issue Nos. 5 and 6 the plaintiff is held entitled to the grant of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest as has been noticed in the beginning of the judgment. 6. Mr. N. N. Saikia, learned Sr. Advocate representing the appellants has argued only one point before us. With reference to S. 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 it has been submitted that the plaintiff instead of rushing to the Civil Court should have filed a complaint to the Electrical Inspector under the aforementioned provision who after making appropriate enquiry could have reported the cause of the accident. The precise argument of the counsel is, in view of S. 33 of the aforesaid Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. In order to appreciate the point, it is necessary to look at the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 33 of the Act reads as under :- "33. Notice of accidents and inquiries (1) 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. (2) 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 or of any licence or rules thereunder, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with. (3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub-sec. (3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub-sec. (2) shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects; and every person required by an Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid to furnish any information shall be deemed to be legally bound to do so within the meaning of Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the argument of the counsel for the appellant. Section 33 as has been reproduced above, in our considered view envisages about the enquiry to be conducted about the cause of the accident resulting into the loss of human life. It appears to us that S. 33 has been enacted for altogether different purposes mentioned therein, but not for the purpose of determining compensation to the victim. The jurisdiction for determination of the extent and quantum of compensation lies only with the Civil Court. Section 9 of the CPC specifically lays down that Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting such suits the congnizance which is either expressly or impliedly barred. There is no provision in the Electricity Act, vesting the powers with any authority to grant compensation. In the absence of any such provision, S. 33 does not and cannot come to the rescue of the appellant. The complaint could have given notice under S. 33, but such a notice could not have granted the plaintiff any relief as regards compensation. 8. The claim of the plaintiff, in the considered view of the Court, arises out of negligence and therefore under Law of Torts, it is only the Civil Court and Civil Court alone which would have jurisdiction to determine and grant compensation. The position might have been different if a provision had been made by the Parliament while enacting Electricity Act providing therein a forum for determination of compensation. In the absence of any provision, a victim can knock the door of the Court for redressal of his grievances. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal of the appellant is found to be devoid of any merit and is ordered to be dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.