ORDER 1. Through this writ application the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. Five lacs in view of the death of the petitioner’s husband caused by electrocution due to negligence of the officials of the respondent no. 1. Petitioner seeks further direction for holding inquiry to fix responsibility upon the persons responsible for the death of her husband and for taking suitable action against the guilty official(s). 2. Facts of the case as stated in the writ petition can be summarized as under: 3. The deceased husband of the petitioner was a driver aged about 38 years and was earning Rs. 5000/- per month. He was the sole bread winner of the family consisting of his wife and three minor sons. On the fateful day i.e., on 29.5.2003 was driving his Tata truck bearing registration No. BR 06G 4192 and the khalasi was sitting with him. The truck was boarded with band-party. The truck while passing through one village Jurawanpur came in contact with loosely hanging live electric wire which was not visible as per the claim due to fog. Persons boarding the truck and khalasi ran away but the driver, i.e., the husband of the petitioner, got stuck in the truck itself. As a result he received severe burn injury due to electric shock. He was brought to doctor of the Sadar Hospital, however, was declared already dead. A complaint was filed before the Police which was forwarded to Jurawanpur Police Station with a note that the place of occurrence lies in the jurisdiction of the aforesaid police Station. The post mortem report discloses the cause of death as shock due to electric current. A report was lodged before the police by the khalasi of the truck, namely, Sanjiv Kumar who was also accompanying the husband of the petitioner on the fateful day. It has been claimed in the writ application that a live electric wire was loosely hanging from one pole to another pole across the road and, thus, had come in contact with the vehicle driven by the deceased while it was passing through the place concerned. It has also been stated that the villagers had already informed the respondent no. 7 regarding the loosely hanging wire for repairing but, despite several informations given, no step could be taken by them and ultimately that has resulted in the mishap. 4. It has also been stated that the villagers had already informed the respondent no. 7 regarding the loosely hanging wire for repairing but, despite several informations given, no step could be taken by them and ultimately that has resulted in the mishap. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents and have perused the records of this case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents are responsible for keeping up and maintaining the transmission lines as per their statutory duty which they failed to perform. The concerned transmission line was poorly maintained as it was loosely hanging across one pole to another pole. It has been contended that the respondents have miserably failed to discharge their duty and their negligence had resulted into the death of the husband of the petitioner who was the sole bread winner of the family consisting of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner and their three minor children. In above view of the matter a claim for compensation of rupees five lakhs has been made. It is claimed by the petitioner that several representations were filed before the respondents but none of them has been disposed of by them. The representations have been appended as Annexures 4, 5 and 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the catena of judicial pronouncements to impress upon this Court that in the facts and circumstances this Court can issue a direction to the respondents for grant of suitable and adequate and reasonable compensation. 7. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of Delhi High Court in Dharamvir Kataria v. Union of India [AIR 1999 Delhi 291] to impress upon this Court that if death of a person caused due to negligence in public duty, the same would be in clear violation of the victim’s right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, in such case a writ petition can be maintained as it is a remedy in addition to remedy available in private law for damages for tortious acts of State or its functionaries or public servants. 8. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex court in Parvati Devi and Others v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors. [(2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 754]. 8. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex court in Parvati Devi and Others v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors. [(2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 754]. In that case a 54 year old man working as a machineman in a press and was due to retire at age of 60, was electrocuted while walking on road. The legal heirs of the victim moved before the High Court of Delhi claiming compensation which was not awarded. However, the Apex Court has held that the death was on account of electric shock is established from CFSL report from the Calcutta and once it is established that the death occurred on account of electrocution while walking on road, necessarily the authorities concerned must be held to be negligent, and, therefore responsible for the death. In the aforesaid case rupees one lakh was awarded by way of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. 9. In M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar [ AIR 2002 SC 551 ] = [(2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 162] the Apex Court has held that if a person dies of electrocution due to live wire lying on road, the liability to pay damage would be primarily upon the Electricity Board. The defence that electrocution was due to clandestine Pilferage committed by stranger was found not available to the Board. It has further been held that if a cyclist at night was electrocuted by live wire, as he could not see it, even assuming that all safety measure has been adopted by the concerned Electricity Department irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the mangers of such undertakings, the respondent undertaking would be liable to pay compensation in view of its “Strict liability”. 10. Ram Swaroop Yadav v. Bihar State Electricity Board [ 2004(2) PLJR 525 ], a single Judge of this Court placing reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. Sumathi and others [ (2000) 4 SCC 543 ] has held that though it is true that the right claimed by the petitioner is not capable of being established in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, one has to bear in mind that the object of conferment of jurisdiction under the said Article is for enforcement and not for establishment of right. Rule is of discretion and not of exclusion of jurisdiction, hence a High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review is not incompetent to decide an issue of fact which can be determined from the materials on record. While awarding compensation of rupees two lakhs this Court has observed that perfect compensation would hardly be possible, however, it should be adequate and reasonable but should not be excessive or fanciful. 11. Aforesaid decision rendered by a single Bench was challenged by the Bihar State Electricity Board & another by preferring L.P.A. No. 713 of 2004. However, a Division bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal had even gone to the extent to record that in view of the judgment of the writ Court the appeal itself should not have even been filed. It has been observed that after its deprecatable conduct, one should have expected the Board to show more grace and accept the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge but unfortunately it deemed fit to take the matter in appeal. However, certain directions were given to the Electricity Board by the Division Bench. Relevant passage containing the directions given by the Division Bench is reproduced as under : “10. But before closing the records, I would like to add a few words of advise for the Board. In causes of accidental electrocution of the present kind, the Board must take a more reasonable if not humane stand. I am fully conscious of the financial and other constraints faced by the Board. I am aware of the unfortunate reality that the Board is simply unable to maintain and operate its installations writ strict application of the statutory safeguards or subject to safety measures followed by the highly developed and industrialized countries. A case of accidental electrocution of the present kind is neither the first nor unfortunately the last that would take place. Accidents should not happen, but they do. In such cases, the Board does not help anyone, least of all itself by taking an ostrich like position and denying the occurrence itself. This Court would advise the Board to take a more realistic, positive and helpful stand in the matter. It should issue necessary directions and ensure that whenever any accidental electrocution/electrical mishap takes place, a team of its local functionaries/Field Officers visits the spot. This Court would advise the Board to take a more realistic, positive and helpful stand in the matter. It should issue necessary directions and ensure that whenever any accidental electrocution/electrical mishap takes place, a team of its local functionaries/Field Officers visits the spot. The team should first ascertain the source of mishap, whether it was the fittings at any private/public premises (not concerning the Board) or it was any of the installations of the Board. It should collect all the relevant details and should take down the statements of the family members of the victim, the neighbours or any other independent witnesses who might have seen the occurrence. A report should then be submitted to the local area and it should finally come to the Board for taking a decision with regard to prevention of such occurrence in future, payment of reasonable compensation to the victim/his heirs and any other related matters. In case the matter comes to Court, the materials collected by the team visiting the spot, its report and the decision taken on its basis should be placed for the scrutiny of the Court.” 12. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking a stand that the Board regularly and efficiently managing its transmission line specially on the date of the alleged accident has been taken place. It is also submitted that this is not a case of snapping of wire maintained by the Board rather the allegation is that wire was loosely hanging across the road from one pole to another pole which came into contact with the truck on the fateful day. Another point has been taken that in the absence of any inquiry having been held by the Electrical Inspector as per the requirement of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It would not be possible for Board to grant any compensation and the petitioner should have filed a case either under Worksmen’s Compensation Act or under Fatal Accident Act. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that for fixing a tortuous liability, negligence on part of the respondents was necessary to be established by the claimant. The mere fact that the transmission line was loosely hanging and snapped and the deceased has come to the contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. 13. The mere fact that the transmission line was loosely hanging and snapped and the deceased has come to the contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court SDO, GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. V. Timudu Oram [ (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 156]. 14. Upon consideration of rival contention this Court finds force and submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The factum of death is due to electric shock has not been disputed in the counter affidavit as the same is established in the inquest as well as post mortem report which has been appended to the writ application by way of Annexures 2 and 3. The factum of lodging report with the police is also not in dispute. The fardbeyan has been appended as Annexure 1. Only a bald statement has been made in the counter affidavit that transmission lines are being maintained in regular and proper manner and there has not been any snapping of electrical wire. Another statement has been made that even if the petitioner has died after coming into contact with snapped live wire that in itself would not be sufficient for awarding compensation as the negligence on part of the respondents would have to be proved. However, the question would be where is the denial by the respondents that no occurrence has taken place in the manner which has been described in the writ application and the fardbeyan appended as Annexure 1? It is true that it is not a case of snapping of wire but the same would not be of much difference. Be that a live wire lying on ground after snapping or the same hanging across the road and coming into contact with the vehicle causing death, both can be considered as negligence act unless there is specific denial that such occurrence has not taken place in the manner which has been claimed by the claimant. It has not been stated any where in the counter affidavit that the matter has been inquired by the officers or manager of the respondents and they have come to the conclusion that no such accident had taken place due to their negligence and in the manner claimed by the petitioner. It has not been stated any where in the counter affidavit that the matter has been inquired by the officers or manager of the respondents and they have come to the conclusion that no such accident had taken place due to their negligence and in the manner claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have filed several representations have been appended as Annexures 4, 5 and 6. But it appears even that had also not prompted them to hold any inquiry regarding the occurrence. It is also noticed that there has been no denial in the counter affidavit regarding the factum of filing of the representations as contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6. Learned counsel for the State has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in SDO, GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra). However, in that case the matter was inquired by the Department and a report was submitted by the S.D.O., electrical Sub-Division on 24.8.1997 disclosing that the cause of death had occurred due to illegal electric connection taken through hook for which the deceased himself was to be blamed. Thus, the case in hand is easily distinguishable from the aforesaid case on facts as in the present case no such inquiry appears to have ever been held as there is no specific averment that such occurrence has not taken place in the manner described by the claimant on the basis of any enquiry etc. It appears that a dispute as stated in the counter affidavit has only been raised for the sake of raising it without any substance therein. It would also relevant to point out that, in the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has denied compensation also in view of the fact that the writ application before the High Court itself was not maintainable as the suit filed by the plaintiffs for compensation was dismissed and, after a lapse of 10 years, the writ application was filed for self same relief. 15. Another issue has been raised on behalf of the respondents that in view of absence of any inquiry held by the Electrical Inspector as required under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioner would not be held to be fit for award of compensation. This contention is also noted only to be rejected. 16. In Minakshi Patra v. Secretary, Irrigation and Power, Govt. This contention is also noted only to be rejected. 16. In Minakshi Patra v. Secretary, Irrigation and Power, Govt. of Orissa [ AIR 1999 Orissa 137] the Orissa High Court has examined the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Electricity Act and has held that a victim of an electricity accident has got nothing to do with the notice contemplated under Section 33. Actually it would be a duty cast upon the person responsible for the generation, termination or supply or use of energy, or in connection with any part of the electric supply lines or other works to bring the occurrence to the notice of the Electrical Department. The statutory inquiry contemplated in Section 33 has nothing to do with the cause of action of a victim or the legal representation of the victim to claim any damages. 17. As stated above, in view of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 being pari materia with the aforesaid Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, this Court would have no difficulty in following the decisions of Orissa High Court as aforesaid and, thus, it is held that notice under Section 161 of Electricity Act, 2003 was not required to be given by the legal representatives of the deceased claiming compensation or damages rather there has been failure on the part of the respondents inquire into the matter even after filing of the representations by the claimant and further for failure to comply the provisions under Section 161 of the Act. It is also noticed that that the respondents have failed to make out any defence that electrocution of the victim was either due to clandestine pilferage committed by a stranger or due to act of God as no such case has been made out. Thus, in my considered opinion, in the absence of any effective denial of the manner of occurrence and since the death of the victim is admittedly due to electrocution, this writ application would be maintainable and the respondents would liable to pay reasonable and adequate compensation. 18. Thus, in my considered opinion, in the absence of any effective denial of the manner of occurrence and since the death of the victim is admittedly due to electrocution, this writ application would be maintainable and the respondents would liable to pay reasonable and adequate compensation. 18. Apart from the above, the respondents cannot escape from such liability even if it is assumed that all safety measures had been adopted by the Electricity Board since it is engaged in undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life and in such case also they would be liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any person in view of their “strict liability”. It has been held in M.P. Electricity Board (supra) that the aforesaid “strict liability” differs from the liability which arises on account of negligence or fault. 19. However, next question would arise as to what should be the reasonable and adequate compensation. 20. A Single Bench of this Court in Ram Swaroop Yadav (supra) has examined the issue and expressed its views. The relevant passage is reproduced as under: “14. Now, the question is as to how much compensation the petitioner shall be entitled. Compensations a device, which the law has contemplated to be paid to a person who had suffered the loss by a person whose act or omission had led to loss or the injury and justice demands that it should be equal in value. However, it is equally well settled that perfect compensation is hardly possible. Compensation awarded should be adequate and reasonable but should not be excessive or fanciful. There can be no exact or firm rule for measuring value of human life and the loss cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation but has to be decided on the basis of broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive nor should it be a source of profit. In the facts of the present case, I am of opinion that a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs shall be just and proper. However, in case the petitioner believes that he is entitled for more compensation, nothing shall prevent him from bringing an appropriate action for that purpose. It should neither be punitive nor should it be a source of profit. In the facts of the present case, I am of opinion that a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs shall be just and proper. However, in case the petitioner believes that he is entitled for more compensation, nothing shall prevent him from bringing an appropriate action for that purpose. The respondents shall also be at liberty to make inquiry, ascertain the cause and pin point the person/persons responsible for snapping of the electrical wire and to recover the amount from him.” 21. In the Case in hand the petitioner has claimed that her husband was working as driver and earning Rs. 5000/- per month. However, in the counter affidavit statement has been made that petitioner has not been able to corroborate the aforesaid stand by coming with any evidence in its support. The aforesaid statement prima facie appears to be attractive. However, in my opinion, the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as well as the various provisions under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1948 can be of great help though it cannot be held that the aforesaid provisions would strictly apply. 22. In my considered opinion a compensation of Rs. four lakhs would be just and proper and however, in case the petitioner believes that she is entitled for more compensation, nothing shall prevent her from bringing an appropriate action before a competent forum for that purpose. 23. So far as the relief regarding fixing responsibility on a particular person or group of persons for negligence causing death of the husband of the petitioner and, for taking suitable action against such officials, the petitioner would be at liberty to move before a court of competent jurisdiction as the same would require leading and appreciation of evidence. 24. In view of the unfair stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, as described above, even though the Bihar State Electricity Board has come up with a notification as contained in memo no. 891 dated 12.11.2005 directing payment of Rs. 25000/- immediately to be paid to heir of the deceased who had died due to electrocution which has subsequently been revised and enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-, cost of litigation assessed as Rs. 5000/- is also imposed upon the respondents. 25. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 25000/- immediately to be paid to heir of the deceased who had died due to electrocution which has subsequently been revised and enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-, cost of litigation assessed as Rs. 5000/- is also imposed upon the respondents. 25. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs), along with the cost imposed, to the petitioner within six months.