ORDER Writ petition by persons who are agitating for grant of compensation due to the death of their kin, who according to the petitioners, had died because of electrocution i.e., a high tension power line which is drawn and maintained by the second respondent-BESCOM snapped and fell on the ground and person came in contact with the barbed wire fence on which the power line had fallen, through which electricity was conducted electrocuting, resulting in the death of the person. 2. The version of the petitioners is that they sought for a compensation of Rs. 10.00 lakhs before the first respondent-Kamataka State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bangalore - a statutory Commission constituted under the provisions of Kamataka Electricity Reform Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999) and continued under the proviso to Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Act'), by filing a petition under Section 67(4) of the Act. That petition having been dismissed on the preliminary objection raised by the second respondent licensee within the meaning of this phrase under Section 2(39) read with Section 14 of the Act, the present writ petition, questioning the impugned order dated 17-8-2006 (copy at Annexure-G to the writ petition) passed by the first respondent-Commission. 3. Submission of Sri Giridhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, though are several, is mainly confined to the aspect that the Commission is wrong in taking the view that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim of this nature; that it is the duty of the Commission to determine the compensation, as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 67 of the Act and therefore the Commission has declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and the Commission should be directed to perform its functions in terms of the provisions of under sub-section (4) of Section 67 of the Act. 4. Sri N.K Gupta, Advocate takes notice for respondents 2 to 5 and submits that the order passed by the Commission is justified; that the petitioner had sought for determination of compensation for a sum of Rs. 4. Sri N.K Gupta, Advocate takes notice for respondents 2 to 5 and submits that the order passed by the Commission is justified; that the petitioner had sought for determination of compensation for a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs as though it is a compensation by way of damages to be determined by the Civil Court; that the Commission cannot be treated as a substitute for a Civil Court, even though it is a statutory authority and the petitioners having not taken the matter before the Commission in a proper form, the Commission is justified in declining to examine the cause of the petitioners in the form of the petition which they have presented for relief before the Commission. 5. Before going to consider other aspects and contentions, I notice that what can be examined by the Commission on an application under sub-section (4) of Section 67 of the Act is a subject-matter which is in the form of a difference or dispute, including the amount of compensation, as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 67 of the Act arises and which has arisen between a licensee and a person claiming compensation or damages for any damage incurred or inconvenience caused, either by the licensee" or by any employee of the licensee. 6. The difference or dispute arises only when once party has asserted and the other has denied or declined the assertion. In the present case, I notice the petitioners had not asserted for grant of compensation which they are entitled to before the second respondent-licensee. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that an oral demand had been made and also draws attention of the Court to para 6 of the petition before the Commission, wherein a ground is raised to this effect, unless a specific and express demand mentioning the quantum of compensation is put forth on the licensee and the reasons for making such demand is also disclosed and the licensee has either denied its liability or disputed the quantum, it does not become a difference or dispute within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 67 of the Act. The matter having not been brought before the Commission in such a form, and if the Commission has declined to exercise its jurisdiction, holding that it is not a substitute for the Civil Court for determination of compensation in general, I do not find much error in the view taken by the Commission. If the dispute or difference should have been presented in a proper form and the Commission should have opined in one way or the other, exercising its jurisdiction or otherwise, then the question would have arisen. The question is hypothetical as of now. 7. Though Sri N.K Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 would submit that even a claim of the present nature as is sought to be put forth by the petitioners is not one that is contemplated within the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 67 of the Act, that again, in my view, a hypothetical question at this point of time, as if the Commission should have examined a question of this nature when it had really arisen before it in the form and perhaps if such a view is expressed, the same can be examined by this Court or any other forum. But it is for the persons who are desirous of invoking the jurisdiction of the Commission under sub-section (4) of Section 67 of the Act to prepare proper grounds for it and then approach the Commission to test the correctness or otherwise of the claim etc. That having not happened, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the question sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the premise that the Commission has declined to exercise certain jurisdiction vested in it. It is open to the petitioners to work out their rights and remedy in a proper manner as provided in law. 8. Subject to above observation, this petition is dismissed. 9. Sri N.K Gupta, is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of the respondents 2 to 5, within four weeks.