JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. — This writ appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge passed in OJC No.18039 of 1997 on 16.7.2010 in awarding compensation in favour of the Respondent herein at Rs.2,00,000/- with simple interest per annum from the date of presentation of the writ petition till payment is challenged in this appeal urging various facts and legal contention. 2.The brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties with a view to find out as to whether any substantial question of law that would arise for our consideration in this appeal and answer the same in favour of the appellant petitioner, Central Electricity Supply Utility Ltd., (hereinafter called in short ‘CESU’). 3.The respondent filed a petition before this Court for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- which has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- with the allegation that her husband while taking bath in the river came in contact with live wire which suddenly fell on him being disconnected from the main line in village Sanakosthy. It is stated that the said wire was very old and in a damaged condition due to negligence of the CESU for not maintaining properly and non-repairing of the line in periodical intervals, the accident took place. At the time of death of the deceased, he was aged about 35 years and was working as a daily labourer in the P.W.D. of Government of Orissa and was working in Tangi Section and earning Rs.1,200/- per month. After the accident F.I.R. was lodged and an U.D. Case No.7 of 1997 was registered by the Tangi Police. The deceased left behind him his wife, minor son and minor daughter, who were fully dependent on the earnings of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the accident has been caused due to the negligence of the Electric Department i.e. CESU. Therefore, she is entitled to get compensation. The appellant filed statement of counter traversing the averments of the writ petitioner filed by the respondent. It is stated that the CESU was supplying power to village Sanakosthy and nearby areas by installing a sub-station at Birol and drawing L.T. Conductors from the said sub-station. Therefore, she is entitled to get compensation. The appellant filed statement of counter traversing the averments of the writ petitioner filed by the respondent. It is stated that the CESU was supplying power to village Sanakosthy and nearby areas by installing a sub-station at Birol and drawing L.T. Conductors from the said sub-station. It is stated that the electric lines are maintained regularly and there has been periodical checking by the staff of the appellant from time to time and regular power supply has to be maintained. It is further submitted that there is no negligence as alleged in the petition on the part of the appellant. The allegation of not maintaining the supply line is not correct. Further he has placed reliance upon the investigation report of Tangi Police Station which discloses the fact that due to falling of wooden branch on the live electric line one of the conductors was detached from the electric pole and fell on the deceased who was passing there on account of which the respondent’s husband died. No where in the investigation report any negligence on the part of the officers/staff of the appellant has been noticed by the investigating agency. Since there was no negligence on the part of the supply authority, the respondent is not entitled to get any compensation. Despite stating the same in the counter it was argued that the matter regarding negligence is a question of fact and the same is required to be examined by the trial Court after full fledged trial. Learned Single Judge has not considered at the time of passing the impugned order, the F.I.R., and the investigation report, which clearly stated that due to falling of wooden branch on the live electric line one of the conductors detached from the electric pole and fell on the deceased who was passing there and for that the deceased died on account of natural calamity. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and he has not recorded a finding that due to negligence on the part of the CESU in not maintaining the supply line properly, the deceased came in contact with the same on account of falling of a branch tree upon the same resulted in accident and the husband of the respondent died. It is an act of God and no negligence can be attributed to the officers/staff of the CESU. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that in the absence of any findings on this relevant aspect, the award of compensation by the learned Single Judge in favour of the respondent is erroneous and error in law and the same is required to be set aside. It is further contended by Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel that determination of the compensation has to be made on the basis of material evidence regarding the income, which the deceased was earning as on the date of accident and the age of the deceased at the time of death should be considered for determining compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of presentation of the writ petition till payment, in not taking the above aspects by the learned Single Judge and determining the compensation in favour of the respondent is vitiated in law on account of erroneous finding and reason. Further reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nirmala Nayak & Ors. Vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & anr., reported in 2005 (II) OLR 389 , in which judgment, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197 has been referred to as guide to determine the compensation is also an erroneous approach of the learned Single Judge and award of interest on the compensation is a huge liability upon the CESU from the date of filing of the writ petition till the payment is not permissible in law as there is no negligence on the part of the officers/staff of the CESU for payment of compensation to the respondent. Therefore, he submits that interest could not have been awarded on the compensation in favour of the respondent by the learned Single Judge. Hence, Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate submits that the order is contrary to law and requested the Court to set aside the same and direct the respondent to approach the competent Civil Court and get the compensation determined by placing material and legal evidence on record to prove the fact of negligence and also the quantum of compensation. 4.The respondent is represented by Dr. Tahali Charan Mohanty, Sr. Advocate. 4.The respondent is represented by Dr. Tahali Charan Mohanty, Sr. Advocate. He contends that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that an act of God and accident occurred and death took place has to be attributed to the Supplier, in support of the said contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.D.O., Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Ors., v. Timudu Oram, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3971 . Dr. Tahali Mohanty learned Senior Advocate has sought to justify the order contending that the said order is based on proper appreciation of facts and law on the question and also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi & anr. reported in AIR 2000 SC 43 , wherein the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nirmala Nayak & ors. Vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & anr., reported in 2005 (II) OLR 389 , in which judgment various earlier decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to various aspects have been referred to, regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and further contends that the accident occurred on account of falling of live electric line on the deceased and he died on account of the act of God, in such cases the act of negligence has to be applied for non-maintenance of the electric supply lines and therefore there is negligence and compensation shall be paid to the dependants, the Company is liable to pay compensation. He has further contended that various decision of the Supreme Court namely, in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. V. Sukamani Das, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3412 , in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Sachin Banerjee, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3629, the Supreme Court has examined the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the rule of strict liability has been considered and granted compensation in favour of the claimants in those cases. Therefore, reliance placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court referred to supra by the learned counsel for the appellant is totally inapplicable to the facts of the case and therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, reliance placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court referred to supra by the learned counsel for the appellant is totally inapplicable to the facts of the case and therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5.With reference to the above said rival contention, we have carefully examined the correctness of the order impugned in the writ appeal to find out as to whether the orders passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be interfered with by this Court allowing this writ appeal. In our considered view, the impugned order does not call for our interference for the following reasons. 6.It is undisputed fact that the husband of the respondent late Niranjan Sethy died on 13.9.1997 at about 11.00 A.M. on account of electrocution near village Sanakosthy under Tangi P.S. while he was going to take bath in the river due to falling of a dead Chakunda branch on live electric wire which ultimately fell on the deceased. After the death of Niranjan Sethy, a case was registered by Tangi P.S. being U.D. Case No.7/1997, which clearly corroborates the fact of electrocution and on query the investigation agency came to the conclusion that the deceased died on account of electrocution. Falling of live electric wire on the deceased on account of falling of a dead Chakunda branch upon it, which according to the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent the electric supply line was not maintained properly by the Electricity Supply Officers and staff. For the sake of argument even if the branch of a dead Chakunda tree fell on the life electric wire as a result of which the conductors detached from the electric pole and fell on the deceased, it amounts to negligence on the part of the appellant in not maintaining the electric wires properly and carefully. Therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly held that the death of the husband of the respondent is taken place due to electrocution on account of falling of a dead Chakunda tree upon the life wire and accordingly the deceased came in contact with the live wire and died. The aforesaid accident took place due to non-maintenance of live electric wire by the officers/staff of the appellant Company. The aforesaid accident took place due to non-maintenance of live electric wire by the officers/staff of the appellant Company. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge on the rival factual and legal contentions though he has not stated anything in his order, it is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. Therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance upon the decision the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nirmala Naik & Ors. Vrs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra) wherein large number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been referred to in that case with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, for claiming of compensation is held to be maintainable in law. Regarding the accident that had taken place like the case on hand, on account of which the husband of the respondent died due to electrocution is a appropriate case for awarding compensation by placing reliance upon the decision in the case of Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar (supra) wherein the Apex Court observed that while determining the question of compensation and awarding compensation, the guideline factor enunciated in the said case should be followed and in such cases the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act can be considered to be proper guide. Learned Single Judge taking into consideration the minimum wage of Rs.60/- per day for the purpose of annual income to award compensation towards loss of dependency and awarding Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation is the correct approach of the learned Single Judge. Having regard to the age of the deceased husband of the respondent as 35 years, in our considered view the compensation awarded at Rs.2,00,000/- by the learned Single Judge is on the lower side, and it is not just and reasonable compensation. The appellant has contested in the matter and the case was pending since 1997, which is more than 13 years after the death of the husband of the respondent, is a ground for the learned Single Judge to award simple interest @ 6% on the compensation awarded the same is legal and justified. The appellant has contested in the matter and the case was pending since 1997, which is more than 13 years after the death of the husband of the respondent, is a ground for the learned Single Judge to award simple interest @ 6% on the compensation awarded the same is legal and justified. Vide order dated 19.11.2010 this Court passed the following orders:- “We are required to examine both on the aspects of negligence and on the question of enhancement of compensation keeping in view Section-163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 (8) SCC 197 and Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi, AIR 2000 SC 42, wherein the Apex Court held that even though the respondent has not filed any appeal against inadequate compensation, the appellate Court can grant relief.” 7.This Court on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi, AIR 2000 SC 42, issued notices to the respondent and further called upon the appellant as to why compensation shall not be enhanced in the writ appeal filed by it. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any just reason to enhance the same. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed, but no costs. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.I agree. Appeal dismissed.