JUDGMENT A. K. GANGULY, J. : This writ petition has been filed by Parbati Palai claiming to be the wife of Karunakar Palai of village Jalapur, P.O. Debidwar, P.S. /Dist. Jajpur. She has claimed for a compensation of Rs.2,00.000/- with interest in view of the death of her husband, Karunakar Palai by way of electrocu¬tion. 2. The material facts of the case are that on 4.3.2001 at about 6.30 P.M. Karunakar Palai (since deceased) was returning from Biraja Hat with items of grocery and vegetables. A live 11 K.V. wire which was disconnected from the pole was lying on the road and accidentally the deceased came in contact with the said live wire and received several burn injuries and died at the spot. The local people immediately rushed to the public road and saw the incident. The matter was immediately reported to the police station and also to the Electricity Department. An inquest was held on 5.3.2001 at about 11.30 A.M. on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses. After the inquest the local people and the police brought the dead body to the District Headquarters Hospital, Jajpur, for post mortem examination. The post mortem report has been annexed to the writ petition. From the post mortem report it appears that death was due to shock for extensive electric burn and it was also reported that death took place within twenty four hours from the time of conduct of post mortem. It also appears from the post mortem report that there was no disease or infirmity of the deceased. From the perusal of the said post mortem report it appears that the said Karunakar was a healthy person and died as a result of the electric shock which resulted in severe burn injuries. It is stated in the writ petition that the deceased Karunakar was the only earning member of the family and died at the age of about 55 years leaving behind one marriageable daughter and two unemployed sons and the petitioner. After the tragic incident, the petitioner became bed-ridden. It has also been stated that the petitioner has no landed property. It is further stated that some of the officers of the opposite parties visited the spot and assured the family members of the deceased that some compensation will be paid, but no such compensation was ever paid. After the tragic incident, the petitioner became bed-ridden. It has also been stated that the petitioner has no landed property. It is further stated that some of the officers of the opposite parties visited the spot and assured the family members of the deceased that some compensation will be paid, but no such compensation was ever paid. As such, this writ petition has been filed. 3. In the counter affidavit, which has been filed by opposite party No.2, the death of Karunakar by way of electrocution has not been denied. It has been stated that on 4.3.2001 there was a storm in the area and as a result of a severe storm one L.T. conductor snapped and this was an Act of God and was beyond the control of the opposite parties. It is also stated that the employees of the opposite parties did not receive any information regarding the snapping of conductor wire and they widely circulated in the area a warning to all the inhabitants and people that none of the inhabitants or people should touch the electric line. it is also stated that the de¬ceased should be knowing fully well the fact that touching of a live electric wire would result in an accident. It is also stated that the opposite parties are not responsible for the alleged accident and the transmission and distribution of electricity are regulated by the Indian Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the opposite parties have discharged their duties in conformity with the said provision. They had taken all precau¬tions such as, pre-monsoon checking and other maintenance work prior to the accident. It is also stated that he writ petitioner has not furnished any particular about the relationship and status with the deceased nor any particulars about the wages of the deceased. It is also stated that the compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner is highly exaggerated and unreasonable. 4. It is noticed that in this case the counter affidavit which has been filed by opposite party No.2 does not choose to deal with the writ petition with regard to its paragraphs. Since the averments made in various paragraphs in the writ peti¬tion have not been specifically dealt with, this Court cannot give much weight to the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties. 5. Since the averments made in various paragraphs in the writ peti¬tion have not been specifically dealt with, this Court cannot give much weight to the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties. 5. Apart from this, the averments made in the counter affidavit are very vague and general in nature. It has also not been denied that the deceased died after receiving the electric shock from a live wire. It is also an admitted fact that there was heavy storm and rain and as a result of which the live wire snapped and fell on the road and it has not been denied that the opposite parties are responsible for proper maintenance of such high voltage wires. 6. Almost in similar facts a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nirmala Nayak and others v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Grid Corporation of Orissa, Ltd. and another ( O.J.C. No.6339 of 1997, disposed of on 13.4.2005) granted compensation to the claimants. In that context, the learned Judges discussed the relevant legal aspects. Since the legal question is covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court as mentioned above, following the said ratio, this Court also in this case grants compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) to the petitioner having regard to the fact that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and there are several dependents on the deceased. Such compensation shall be paid to the petitioner with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the death of the deceased till the date of actual payment. This Court further directs opposite party No.2 to make such calculation and deposit the said amount either in cash or by way of cheque with the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court within a period of four weeks from today. The Registrar (Judicial) there¬upon shall send notice to the petitioner. The petitioner must produce some material or evidence to show that she is the legally married wife of the deceased, Karunakar Palai. After being satis¬fied about the relationship between the deceased and the peti¬tioner, the Registrar (Judicial) shall disburse the amount to the petitioner on proper identification. 7. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. I. MAHANTY, J. I agree. Petition allowed to the extent indicated.