Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This order shall dispose of C.W.J.C. No. 3689 of 2000 (Pappu Rai & Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 3865 of 2000 (Mukesh Kumar Thakur V/s. The State of Bihar & Anr.). 3. In each of the case one woman died, as alleged by electrocution. The case j of each of the petitioner is that a live wire snapped and fell on the poor soul, who died on the spot. According to them the matter was immediately reported to the police, the police came to the spot, prepared panchnama and sent the bodies for post mortem and thereafter the bodies were cremated. According to them the report of the post mortem would show that each deceased died of electrocution. In each of the case the petitioners are claiming compensation against the State Electricity Board submitting inter alia that they had committed negligence in discharge of their duties and as the wire snapped as a negligence on their part and had led to death of the relation of the petitioners-claimants the respondents must be held liable to answer the claims lodged by the petitioner. 4. The respondents relying upon Section 33 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Rule 44-A of the Rules framed under the Act have submitted that in case there is an accidental death then the matter is to be reported by any person to the Board so that the Board makes an enquiry and the matter is referred to Electrical Inspector so that he may in his turn make an enquiry. It is also submitted that as the petitioners have not observed provisions contained under Section 33 the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 5. The respondents have denied the event and have come out with a specific case in paragraph 6 of their counter affidavit that no accident took place and no snapping of the wire led to the death of those women. 6. It is submitted by them that unless a detailed enquiry is made into the facts that the wire snapped from the pole and fell on the poor women this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not award any compensation. The submission in fact is that unless the wrong or tort is found proved against the respondents compensation cannot be awarded. 7. The submission in fact is that unless the wrong or tort is found proved against the respondents compensation cannot be awarded. 7. So far as Section 33 of the Act is concerned I must immediately observe that if any accident occurrs which has resulted in loss of human and animal life then such accident is to be reported by any person 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 order/special order direct. Section 33 simply says that after receiving such an information the Electrical Inspector or other person holding an enquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 33 shall have powers of the Civil Courts. Section 33 does nowhere says that if a report is not made in the prescribed form in prescribed manner by any person to the State Electricity Board or the Electrical Inspector then what would be the consequences of non-reporting. It is to be seen from Rule 44-A of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 that the report is to be made by such person or any authorised person of the State Electricity Board/Supplier not below the rank of a Junior Engineer or equivalent. In the present case even if no report has been made by the dependent or the sufferers the same is not going to provide the shelter to the State Electricity Board. The State Electricity Board, has to observe the Rules and the said provision of law only for the purposes of verifying the facts that whether in facl there had been an accident or not and whether human and animal life was lost. if Section 33 in its term does not show that here would be any penal consequences or deterrent consequences of non-reporting then this Court must observe that Rule 33 simply provide a procedure so that the Electrical Inspector or the licensee or the Board gets the information right in time or makes the enquiry into the incident or the accident. I am unable to hold that non-observance of section 33 read with Rule 44-A would lead to any loss to the person who has suffered the losses because of the electrocution. 8. I am unable to hold that non-observance of section 33 read with Rule 44-A would lead to any loss to the person who has suffered the losses because of the electrocution. 8. Under these two cases as the respondents have come out with the categorical assertions that no incident had taken place and the person did not die as a result of electrocution because of the fall of the electric wire, I am unable to make an enquiry and hold that in fact these two women died of electrocution because of the fall of the live wire which has snapped from the pole. These two petitions are dismissed with liberty in favour of each of the petitioners set that if advised they may prosecute the respondents before proper forum and may claim compensation in accordance with law after proving the fact that in fact the death was because of the fall of/snapping of a live electric wire.