JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. None appears for the State Respondent Nos. 3. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has sought to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for compensating the death of Md. Hanif Ali, who was the husband of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner late Hanif Ali (here-in-after called "deceased") died on 19.6.2001 following electrocution in his agricultural field, while crossing the live wire which was lying on the ground. According to the Petitioner the accident took place due to sheer negligence of the Respondent authorities due to their failure to repair and maintain the electric line. It is stated that the deceased was 45 years old at the time of his death and he was the sole bread earner of the family consisting of the Petitioner, her mother-in-law Mosht. Jamila Bewa aged about 67 years and their daughter Miss. Tahara Khatun aged about 16 years and their sons namely Md. Ismail Ali aged about 12 years, Md. Saleman Ali aged about 10 years and Md. Safior Islam aged about 7 years. The Petitioner claims for compensation of Rs. 5 (five) lakhs from the Respondents. The electricity authority contested the claim by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition the contesting Defendants stated that due to heavy thunder storm and rain at Garugaon village from 18.6.2001 branches of trees were falling down as a result of which one 11 KV line from 33/11 KV Abhayapuri Sub-division snapped on 19.6.2001 and unfortunately at that very moment the deceased husband of the writ Petitioner, who was passing through that place came in the contact with the live conductor and got electrocuted. Denying allegation of negligence on the part of the electricity authority, it was averred, in the affidavit-in-opposition, that the line was automatically cut down as soon as the conduction came in contact with the ground by blowing D. O. fuses at Thakuranipara. It was further stated that it was beyond the control of the Respondent Board to prevent the death of the deceased. It was further stated that it was beyond the control of the Respondent Board to prevent the death of the deceased. On being called for the Chief Electrical Inspector-cum-Advisor i.e. the Respondent No. 3 submitted the enquiry report in connection with death of the husband of the Petitioner. The report aforesaid, inter-alia, reads as follows: (B) Circumstances that lead to the accident : From the available information which include material furnished by ASEB and statement of some eye witnesses, it appears that the accident occurred as below: In the morning of 19.6.2001 the victim Md. Hanif Ali sent to paddy field for ploughing. When he returned home at about 8.30 A.M. he come into contact of a 11 KV live conductor. From the copy of Ajahar submitted to the O.C. Bijni Police Station by Md. Ajad Ali, statement of 3 (three) eye witnesses and report of ASEB, the enquiry officer is of the view that: (a) The branch of a nearby tree fell on the 11 KV line (drawn from 33/11 KV, Abhayapuri Sub-Station) due to storm. (b) The conductor of the 11 KV line snapped when the branch of the tree fell on the 11 KV line conductor. (c) The victim came into contact with the 11 KV snapped conductor which was live, while crossing. As per Post Mortem Report it is mentioned that there were "Multiple, gerrated, burnt line on rear on the chest, both hands and legs" and it is recorded by the Doctor who had conducted the Post Mortem that-- "In my opinion, the death is due to hypovolemic shock as a result of heavy electric shock. (C) Possible cause of the accident and breach of provisions of Indian Electricity Rules 1956, if any: It is clear that the victim was electrocuted due to coming into contact with a snapped conductor. But it is difficult to come to a clear conclusion whether (a) the live conductor fell on the person or (b) the victim came into contact with snapped conductor which was lying live on the ground. In case of (a) above, no violation of any provision of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 could be attributed to ASEB, as the conductor snapped when the branch of a tree fell on the line purported to be due to a storm. In case of (a) above, no violation of any provision of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 could be attributed to ASEB, as the conductor snapped when the branch of a tree fell on the line purported to be due to a storm. The ASEB cannot be faulted in that case as the event may be considered to be an 'act of God'. In case of (b) above, if the snapped conductor remain live after it touched the earth, and the place in which the conductor snapped was a 'public place', there was breach of Rule 91 of the I.E. Rules, 1956, by ASEB, as a such line is to be protected with a device which can render the line harmless in case it breaks. 3. In the report it was mentioned that the Branch of a nearby tree had fallen on the 11 KV line as a result of which the conductor of the 11 KV line got snapped and that the victim came into contact with the said snapped live conductor while crossing the same. The Post Mortem report also suggest that the victim died due to hypovolemic shock as a result of heavy electric shock and that he sustained multiple bum injuries on the chest, both hands and legs. In the report it was opined that the victim was electrocuted due to coming in contact of the snapped conductor, and that it was difficult to come to a clear conclusion whether (a) the live conductor had fallen on the person or (b) the victim had come into contact with snapped conductor, which was lying live on the ground. It was also opined that in the event of the former i.e. (a) there was no violation of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 attributable to the ASEB. A careful perusal of the report aforesaid indicates that the victim got electrocuted while crossing. This implies that live line was lying on the ground. Therefore, it can not be believed that the live line had fallen on the victim while he was passing through the paddy field. In their affidavit-in-opposition the answering Respondents stated that there was thunder storm and rain from 18.6.2001 and that the branches of trees were falling down as a result of which the line got snapped on 19.6.2001. Therefore, it can not be believed that the live line had fallen on the victim while he was passing through the paddy field. In their affidavit-in-opposition the answering Respondents stated that there was thunder storm and rain from 18.6.2001 and that the branches of trees were falling down as a result of which the line got snapped on 19.6.2001. This contention of the Respondents indicate that they had the information and knowledge regarding the heavy thunder storm and rain etc. on 18.6.2001 itself and the tailing of branches of trees due to such heavy thunder storm and rains, which started fell down w.e.f. 18.6.2001. In view of the above, there is nothing on record to find that the Respondent had taken any measure to stop the occurrence of any incident of the present nature. That apart, the fact that the line got snapped due to falling of the branches of the trees lead to find that the danger of falling branches on the live line was already looming large and as such the potential danger to cause serious accident of the present nature was already there, without any steps to prevent such probable accident. There is nothing on record to find that the Respondent had taken steps to remove such danger, if necessary by cutting the branches of the trees. Relying on the decision held in the case of SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Ors. v. Timudu Oram reported in (2005) 6 SCC 156 , the learned Counsel appearing for the State Electricity Board submitted that the falling of the branches of the trees on the line resulting the death of the husband of the Petitioner was due to thunder storm and rains, which was an act of the God and as such the Electricity Board was not responsible for the death of the deceased. In the above case referred by the learned counsel, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the mere fact that the wire of electric transmission line belonging to the Appellants had snapped and the deceased had come into contact with it and died by itself was not sufficient for awarding compensation. In the above case referred by the learned counsel, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the mere fact that the wire of electric transmission line belonging to the Appellants had snapped and the deceased had come into contact with it and died by itself was not sufficient for awarding compensation. It was also observed that the Court was required to examine as to whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence on the part of the Appellants, as a result of which the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In the above referred case one person had illegally taken power supply without the knowledge of the Appellant authority by use of a hook from the LI point to their houses by means of an uninsulated GI wire. The unauthorized GI wire through which the line was illegally taken got disconnected and fell on the ground. At that time the father of the Respondent was coming that way with his bullock. The bullock came in contact with the live GI wire as a result thereof got electrocuted. Therefore, it appears that the fact that electricity connection was illegally obtained by using unauthorized GI wire was not within the knowledge of the Appellant. But in the present case in hand it was very much within the knowledge of the electricity board that the live wire with high voltage was passing above the agricultural land, having branches of trees over it, and that there was heavy thunder storm and rain from 18.6.2001 i.e. the day before the day of incident, as a result of which branches of trees were falling down. Therefore, as the electricity board did not take any step either to disconnect the power supply due to such heavy thunder storm and rains or to remove/cut the nearby branches of the trees, it can be safely held that there was lapse/negligence on the part of the electricity board in maintaining the power line. That apart, from the report submitted by the Chief Electrical Inspector-cum-Advisor i.e. the Respondent No. 3, it can be concluded that the live line was lying on the ground and the victim got electrocuted while crossing the same. In view of the above, the contention of the electricity board that the line automatically got cut by blowing D. O. fuse as soon as it touched the ground cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the contention of the electricity board that the line automatically got cut by blowing D. O. fuse as soon as it touched the ground cannot be accepted. Under the law an obligation is cast on the board in transmitting the electrical energy to take precautionary measure and the board has to be extra vigilant and cautious so that life and properties of persons are not exposed to any risk or fatal consequence. The board is required to be meticulously careful and watchful about the installation, supply of energy and probability of any incident that may be caused due to falling of branches of trees etc. 4. In the light of the above discussion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case I am of the considered opinion that the board is to be held liable for paying compensation to the Petitioner for the accidental death of her husband due to electrocution. The accident could have been prevented had the board been vigilant and cautious on 18.6.2001 itself. In view of the above discussion the amount of compensation payable has now to be quantified. The husband of the Petitioner, at the time of his death was aged about 45 years. There is no dispute that he was an agriculturist and he was the only earning member of a family consisting of 6 members, which includes his mother aged about 67 years, his wife aged about 37 years and 4 children in between 16 years to 7 years. There is nothing on record to find that the said members of the family of the deceased are in any manner employed. As the compensation is required to made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the nature of the claim some guess work is required to be made. Considering the age of the deceased, his avocation for livelihood and the liabilities, in my considered view an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only as compensation will meet the ends of justice. The said amount shall be made within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the Assam State Electricity Board. 5. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. 6. No costs. 7. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only as compensation will meet the ends of justice. The said amount shall be made within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the Assam State Electricity Board. 5. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. 6. No costs. 7. The awarded amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court and the Registrar General shall release the amount to the Petitioner on proper verification.