JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - On July 8, 1998 Rain Chander a mason was working at a house in village Dhamtan. An electric cable which was passing over the house fell on him. He was electrocuted and. A died report was lodged. Postmortem was performed. The widow, two minor children and the aged parents served a notice on the respondent Electricity Board for the payment of compensation. Having failed to get any relief they have approached this Court through this writ petition. 2. The petitioners pray that the compensation of Rs. 5 lacs be awarded. 3. While filing the writ petition the petitioners have placed reliance on the investigation report into the accident submitted by the Assistant Engineer to the Chief Electrical Inspector. This report is on record as Annexure P5 with the writ petition. It appears that after getting notice of the writ petition, the Board filed an appeal before the Secretary to Government Haryana, Power Department. After consideration of the matter the appeal was accepted. The finding of the Chief Electrical Inspector was set aside. Thereafter, the order dated August 31, 2000 was produced as Annexure R2 with Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 23051 of 2000. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a perusal of the photographs, the report of the police, the post-mortem report and the report of investigation clearly show that Ram Chander had died on account of electrocution. He further submits that the height of the cable even from the roof top was such that not even a tall person could have touched it. It is only on account of the snapping of the cable that the electrocution had occurred. On the other hand, Mr. Chahar appearing for the respondent has submitted that the deceased was 5-9" tall. He had touched the High Tension line and had got electrocuted. He has further submitted that there is a dispute on facts. Thus, the petitioners should be relegated to their remedy before the Civil Court. On these premises, learned counsel has submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed. He had touched the High Tension line and had got electrocuted. He has further submitted that there is a dispute on facts. Thus, the petitioners should be relegated to their remedy before the Civil Court. On these premises, learned counsel has submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed. A perusal of the investigation report submitted by the Chief Electrical Inspector shows that the following finding had been recorded : "Though the accident had occurred per chance but had the 11 KV conductor of adequate strength been provided the accident could have been averted." It was further found that Rule 29 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 had been infringed and that the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited was responsible. This finding clearly shows that the cable was not of adequate strength. Thus, the respondent was at fault. Mr. Chahar submits that the report submitted by the Chief Electrical Inspector has been set aside on the appeal filed by the Nigam. 5. On a perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, we find that the officer had accepted the contention that the deceased had touched the cable. There was, sparking and, thus, the cable had got snapped. As a result, the accident had occurred. Despite being asked Mr. Chahar has not been able to refer to any material on the official record which may indicate that the sparking had actually occurred. However, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel that six SWG conductors (which was of adequate strength) had been provided. Even for that assertion no record has been produced. In this situation, we are not persuaded to accept the findings recorded by the appellate authority. 6. Besides the above, the petitioners have produced on record three pictures. These are at Annexures P1 and P2 with the writ petition. A perusal of photograph Annexure P1 clearly shows that the cable was well above the roof level. Even if a tall man was to stand on the roof top, he could not have touched the cable. In this situation, it is clear that the version of the petitioners that the cable had got broken and resulted in electrocution of Ram Chander is plausible. 7. Mr. Chahar submits that in view of the dispute on facts, the petitioners should be relegated to the remedy before the Civil Court. In this situation, it is clear that the version of the petitioners that the cable had got broken and resulted in electrocution of Ram Chander is plausible. 7. Mr. Chahar submits that in view of the dispute on facts, the petitioners should be relegated to the remedy before the Civil Court. He has placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) & Ors. v. Smt. Sukamani Das & another, JT 1999(7) SC 109. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Bhardwaj submits that the case is clearly distinguishable on facts. 9. In the present case, a fact which stares us in the face is that Ram Chander, the sole bread winner, has died. The widow and minor children as also the aged parents have nothing to fall back upon. It appears that they do not have any source to sustain themselves. In this situation, it would be difficult for them to approach the Civil Court for recovery of damages. 10. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, we think it appropriate to award an ad hoc compensation of Rs. 1, 50, 000/-. This shall be paid to the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the remaining claim, if any, the petitioners shall be entitled to seek their remedy before the Civil Court. Since the petitioners are being relegated to the remedy before the Civil Court at the instance of the respondent itself, it is clarified that in case a suit is filed within two months from today, they will not raise the plea of limitation. We are making this observation in view of the fact that the writ petition has remained pending in this Court from April 1999 till today. In the meantime the case was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the respondent on various occasions. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Petition disposed of