JUDGMENT B.K.MISRA, J. 1. The petitioner claims for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-from the opposite party no.1 because of the grievous burn injuries sustained by him when a live conductor got snapped from the over head main electric line and fell on him. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 26.10.2007 while he was working in his paddy field a live electric wire of the over head 11 K.V. line which was passing over the paddy fields because of poor maintenance by the opposite party Company got snapped and fell on him for which he sustained extensive burn injuries on his body. It is alleged that the co-villagers of the petitioner who were working in the nearby fields immediately rushed to the spot and rescued him. The petitioner initially received treatment in Government Hospital, Gop, but since his condition deteriorated he was removed to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack where he received treatment for quite a long time. The petitioner was discharged from the hospital after prolonged treatment for about three months. But the extensive burn injuries on different parts of his body made him physically handicapped. The discharge certificate of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack in respect of the petitioner has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-4 and the disability certificate in respect of the petitioner furnished by the District Medical Board on 4.8.2008 is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-5. Regarding the incident an F.I.R. was lodged at Gop Police Station basing upon which Station Diary Entry No.519 dated 26.10.2007 was made. About the accident the opposite party Company was informed and the wife of the petitioner applied to the authorities to provide her a job as her husband, namely the petitioner who became physically handicapped because of the aforesaid accident was unable to earn his living. It is alleged that despite several requests to opposite party and after running from pillar to post when the petitioner could not get a single pie as compensation for the injuries he sustained, he approached this Court for compensation. It is alleged that despite several requests to opposite party and after running from pillar to post when the petitioner could not get a single pie as compensation for the injuries he sustained, he approached this Court for compensation. According to the petitioner when the opposite party Company is engaged in a hazardous and inherently dangerous activity and when he sustained injury on account of the accident during the course of such activity of the opposite party Company it is the Company who is liable to compensate him as the accident in question and snapping of the over head electric line cannot be said to be an act of God. 3. The opposite party no.3 entered appearance and filed counter affidavit wherein while denying the claim of the petitioner for compensation it is their case that the alleged accident if any was not due to their fault and moreover they had no knowledge about the snapping of the over head electric line in question. Besides that it is their case that the entire claim of the petitioner is based on disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in a writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the opposite parties prayed that the writ petition should be dismissed. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the materials on record. Annexure-3 the extract of Gop Police Station Diary Entry No.519 dated 26.10.2007 reveals about the lodging of information by one Sudarsan Senapati, the nephew of the petitioner stating that the petitioner while going to his paddy field was injured as an live electric wire fell on him. The F.I.R. lodged by Sudarsan Senapati as well as the wife of the petitioner at Gop Police Station shows that on 25.10.2007 around 10.45 A.M. when the petitioner was going to his paddy field a live electric wire fell on him for which he sustained severe burn injuries and was removed to Gop Hospital first and later on removed to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. The photo copy of the discharge certificate (Annexure-4) shows that the petitioner was admitted into the S.C.B.Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack as an indoor patient on 25.10.2007 as he had deep electric burn injuries and the patient was 25% in low condition. The petitioner was discharged from the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 17.1.2008. The photo copy of the discharge certificate (Annexure-4) shows that the petitioner was admitted into the S.C.B.Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack as an indoor patient on 25.10.2007 as he had deep electric burn injuries and the patient was 25% in low condition. The petitioner was discharged from the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 17.1.2008. Annexure-5 the disability certificate furnished by the District Medical Board, Puri shows that the petitioner had 65% disability as he had stiffness of left shoulder, stiffness of left ankle and foot. There was traumatic condition of left hand. He was advised to use wheel chair. The opposite parties in their counter affidavit have not specifically denied about the accident in question and the deep burn injuries which the petitioner had sustained as a live electric wire fell on him. The denials appear to be evasive in nature. Thus, at this stage we are satisfied after perusing the series of photocopies of the prescriptions at Annexure-8 series and Annexures-4 & 5, that the petitioner suffered physical deformities which were permanent in nature for which he has become disabled on account of a live electric wire getting snapped from the main over head line fell on him. There is no doubt, that the opposite party company is responsible for the maintenance of the electric line and they are duty bound to take protective measures so that live electric wires do not fall on any surface or touch any live object more so a human being. Had the opposite party exercised proper care and supervision and replaced the weak conductor in time the accident in question could have been averted. Therefore, the accident was solely due to lack of care and caution on the part of opposite party Company and its functionaries. The argument that the officials of opposite party Company had no knowledge of the snapping of the conductor (live wire) is not acceptable to us. 5. The rule of strict liability has been applied in our country and there are catena of decisions on the point including that of the Apex Court and of this Court also. The argument that the officials of opposite party Company had no knowledge of the snapping of the conductor (live wire) is not acceptable to us. 5. The rule of strict liability has been applied in our country and there are catena of decisions on the point including that of the Apex Court and of this Court also. In M.C. Mehta –v-Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 ) the Apex Court by going beyond the rule of ‘strict liability’ held that:- “Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on any one on account of the accident in the operation of such activity the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident, such liability is not subject to any of the exception to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Ryelands –v-Flecteher”. 6. By following the dictum of the Apex Court reported in M.S. Grewal –v-Deep Chand Sood (2001) 8 SCC 151 , D.K.Basu –v- D.K.Basu –v-State of West Bengal (Supra), Ramesh Singh Pawar –v-Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and others (Supra), Executive Engineer, CESU, Cuttack Electrical Division, Jobra, Cuttack –v-Hema Sethy, 2011 (II) OLR 70, AIR 1997 Orissa 109, A.Krishna Patra v. Orissa State Electricity Board and others, 2011(1) OLR 198 , Dhananjaya Behera v. CESU represented through its Chief Exeutive Officer and others, and after hearing the learned counsel for both parties, we have no hesitation in coming to a clear and cogent conclusion that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable and the respondents are liable on the principles of strict liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-for the injuries he sustained because of falling of the live electric conductor on him. It is claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition that he was earning Rs.150/-a day by working as daily wage earner in his village. He also claims to have spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-for his treatment. 8. It is claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition that he was earning Rs.150/-a day by working as daily wage earner in his village. He also claims to have spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-for his treatment. 8. Following the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 , M.S. Grewal V. Deep Chand Sood and the decisions of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Central Electricity Supply Utility Limited, Cuttack Electrical Division, Jobra, Cuttack V. Hema Sethy (supra) and Nirmala Nayak and others V. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited and another and Sambari Nayak V. the Chief General Manager, Telecom Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar and others, the quantum of compensation is to be determined in a scientific method with reference to the 2nd schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Besides that in a recent pronouncement the Apex Court in the case Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another reported in 2012 (1) OLR (SC) 171 have held that in case of personal injury the following factors are to be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of compensation, namely:- i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food. ii) Loss of earning during the period of treatment, loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. iii) Future medical expenses. iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. v) Loss of amenities. By following the decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court in the case of Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya (Supra) further observed that if the victim of an accident suffers from permanent or temporary disability, then effort should always be made to award adequate compensation by the Court not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, but for the disability caused due to the accident. The compensation so determined must be just and unjust enrichment should be discouraged in calculating the compensation to be so awarded. The compensation so determined must be just and unjust enrichment should be discouraged in calculating the compensation to be so awarded. It is the consistent view of the Apex Court in umpteen numbers of judicial pronouncements that the calculation of the amount of compensation to be so awarded involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards. 9. In the instant case, Annexure-5 the disability certificate furnished by the District Medical Board, Puri shows that the petitioner was found with 65% disability i.e. Locomotor and he was recommended for movement with wheel chair as there was stiffness of left hand, left shoulder, stiffness of left ankle and foot. The photo which was produced before us exhibit the physical deformities of both the lower limbs of the petitioner because of the accident. From that one can well visualize the amount of pain and sufferings the petitioner has undergone being produced by the fall of the live electric conductor on his person and also must be undergoing because of the traumatic accident in question. 10. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the fact that he will have to take treatment throughout his life, we feel ends of justice would be met by awarding him a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs) under that head. Besides that we also direct the opposite party Company to pay Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) to the petitioner towards the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident. Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.3.5 lakhs as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 31.3.2010 till the date of realization. The opposite party Company is to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) in shape of cash to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the judgment and the balance amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner in any Nationalised Bank for a period of five years with condition that the monthly interest accrued on such fixed deposit be paid to him (petitioner) regularly. Further, we give liberty to the petitioner to move this Court for early disbursement of the amount so kept in fixed deposit, if the petitioner would be in dire necessity of money to meet emergency medical expenses, repairing the dwelling house as well as defraying marriage expenses of the children. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. I agree.