M.M. Kumar, CJ. 1. The officers of the Electric Maintenance and Rural Electrification Wing of Power Development Department Srinagar are in appeal, invoking Clause 12 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2008 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OWP no. 366/2006. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that appellants were negligent in performance of their duties which resulted in electrocution of the respondent- Safir Ahmad Khan and he has to lose both his arms. Accordingly the learned Single Judge has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,08,000/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of payment. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the appeal are that respondent- Safir Ahmad Khan, was working as a Contingent paid employee in the office of Director Libraries and Research J&K Government. He was posted at Arizal Tral. On 10.09.2005 at about 9.30 a.m he was on his way to attend his duties. Then he passed through an orchard belonging to one Farooq Ahmad Khan. There he came in contact with a live wire which was connected with High Tension Line, that was about 3 feet above the ground level. He felt shock and suffered injuries. As a consequence he fell unconscious. He was taken to Soura Medical Institute as a case of electric shock/burn where the doctors amputated both his arms. Consequently he lost his right mid forearm and left arm elbow. He was admitted to hospital on 10.09.2005 and was discharged on 14.11.2005. The period of his hospitalization is over one month. He was about 28 years old on the date of electrocution i.e. 10.09.2005. A certificate to this effect was issued by SKIMS on 24.11.2005 which is set out below in extenso:- "Department of Plastic Surgery Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences Soura: Srinagar To Whom it may concern In reference to letter dated 14.11.2005 from the office of Medical Record Officer, SKIMS regarding issuance of medical certificate, this is to certify that Khan Safeer Ahmad S/O Abdul Majid R/O Arizal, Beeru, Budgam was admitted in the department of Plastic, Surgery of this Institute on 10.9.2005 under MRD No. 400306 with the alleged history of high tension electric burns over both hands and forearms, rt. Elbow, both heels, scalp and posterior thighs. Elbow, both heels, scalp and posterior thighs. He was operated at this Institute on 16.9.05, 22.9.2005, 14.10.2005 and 1.11.2005 and rt. Mid forearm amputation, left elbow amputation, debridement of the raw areas and SSG was performed. He was discharged from the Institute on 14.11.2005. Patient has a permanent disability amounting to 100% (one hundred percent). Sd/- (Dr. Altaf Rasool) Senior Resident Plastic Surgery, SKIMS, Srinagar, Kashmir." 3. The investigating officer while presenting the Final Police Report (Challan) has concluded that the officials of the department have demonstrated lack of carelessness and were negligent. A copy of the FIR has been attached with the writ petition (Annexure B). It is also appropriate to mention that a communication was addressed by the Director, Libraries and Research to the Chief Secretary of the State with favourable recommendations for the respondent, requesting the Chief Secretary to make payment of compensation (Annexure C). In addition the residents of the area also requested to the Government and alleged that the officials of the Electric Department were negligent and careless in performance of their duties and have left the High Tension Electric wire exposed in the area in a dangerous manner. 4. On the basis of the pleadings the learned Single Judge refused to accept that the case reveals disputed questions of fact. Accordingly the learned Single Judge held that the cause of the accident, sustenance of injuries by the writ petitioner-respondent and amputation of his arms are admitted facts. It was further held that the writ petitioner-respondent has suffered 100% disablement and there is a prima facie conclusion which stare in the face that the appellants were negligent in performance of their duties. The finding of the learned Single Judge are based on the FIR, Final Police Report, representation made by the residents of the village Arizal, Beeru and the letter sent by the Director, Libraries and Research to the Chief Secretary. The learned Single Judge held that it was the duty of the Court to come to the rescue of a person who is victim of the negligence and carelessness of the appellants which has resulted in his 100% disablement. Accordingly, the amount was assessed on the basis of the income at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month by applying the multiplier of 17. 5. Mr. Accordingly, the amount was assessed on the basis of the income at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month by applying the multiplier of 17. 5. Mr. Chashoo, learned AAR, has made valiant efforts before us to accept his contention that the matter deserved to be adjudicated by a Civil Court and the conclusion with regard to negligence has to be determined by adducing evidence. According to the learned counsel it would be unsafe to infer negligence merely because a live wire was hanging at about 3/4 feet height. No one has come forward on behalf of the writ petitioner- respondent. 6. Having heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants and perusing the record, we are of the view that the law concerning grant of compensation in cases of electrocution by live wire on account of negligence is well settled. 7. In paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and ors, (2002) 2 SCC 162 , it has been observed that in such like cases where the live wire has been exposed to the users of the road in a dangerous way there the Board cannot avoid the liability. The aforesaid two paras are set out below in extenso:- "7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions." 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court also placed reliance on the well known judgment in the English common law, namely, Rylands v. Fletcher, (1861-73) All ER Reports 1 and has discussed in detail the principles of strict liability, holding that where an enterprise is engaged in dangerous activity and harm is caused to anyone on account of such accident the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident. Citing the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 , has concluded that such liability is not subject to any of. the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher. Citing the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 , has concluded that such liability is not subject to any of. the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher. Similar principles have been laid down in case of Parvati Devi and ors v. Commissioner of Police Delhi and ors, (2000) 3 SCC 754 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi and ors, (2000) 4 SCC 543 . 9. When the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the principles laid down above, then it would emerge that the learned Single Judge has taken the correct view. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that live wire was at a height of 4 feet above the ground level. There is no controversy that the writ petitioner- respondent was electrocuted and he lost both his arms as a result of shock and burn injuries and that his arms were amputated. The responsibility was cast on the appellants to ensure that no live wire is kept exposed in a dangerous way. The Police in the FIR as well as in the investigation has concluded that there was a visible carelessness and negligence on the part of the appellants and presented a Final Report. The employer of the writ petitioner-respondent, namely, the Director, Libraries and Research also sent a letter to the Chief Secretary of the State which is followed by a similar letter written by the residents. Therefore, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of the court. Therefore, no disputed question of fact would emerge warranting the view that the writ petitioner-respondent should be relegated to the remedy of filing a suit. 10. The next question is the quantum of compensation, which we feel has been correctly assessed by the learned Single Judge. The view of the learned Single Judge is evident from the concluding para of the judgment, which is set out below:- "Now the question is as to what is the just compensation to be awarded to the petitioner in the given circumstances of the case. Admittedly the age of the petitioner is 28 years and he was a contingent paid employee meaning thereby he was earning Rs. Admittedly the age of the petitioner is 28 years and he was a contingent paid employee meaning thereby he was earning Rs. 2000/- per month, which he has lost and is not in a position to earn because of his having become 100% disabled. I deem it proper to apply multiplier provided by the schedule appended with Motor Vehicle Act in order to assess just and reasonable compensation. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case coupled with age of the petitioner, multiplier 17 is just and appropriate. Accordingly petitioner is entitled to 2000 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the writ petition viz. 31.05.2006 till its final realization. Respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation before the Registry of this court within three months from today." 11. The multiplier of 17 has been rightly applied keeping in view the young age of the writ petitioner- respondent and 100% disablement suffered by him. It is based on the principle enshrined in Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicle Act. 12. Accordingly, we uphold the award of Rs. 4,08,000/- and also concur with grant of 6% interest on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the writ petition till its final payment. The amount, if not already deposited with the Registry of this Court, shall be paid to the writ petitioner- respondent positively within a period of one month from today. 13. Consequently the order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.