JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J.: This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction from this Court to the opposite party to show cause as to why the petitioners shall not be awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) together with interest @20% immediately and if the opposite party fails to show-cause or show insufficient cause to make the rule absolute by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ / order / directions as the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, equitable and expeditious taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances. (2) Petitioners are the claimants, petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased whereas the petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased who died in electrocution on 11.08.1997. The opposite party is an authority under the State of Odisha and the owner of the Electric Line as well as the pole through which the alleged electrocution to the body of the deceased has occurred. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have alleged that while the deceased was returning from his duty by a bicycle to his quarter on the public road near Satyasai High School, Lalitkala Academy on 11.08.1997 suddenly a live electric wire got snapped from the main line and fell down on the deceased. The deceased on coming in contact with the live electric wire died on the spot. It is further alleged that the electric line, where the accident took place belongs to the opposite party. Thus the petitioners claim that, the death has occurred due to negligence by the opposite party. For their negligence, they are liable to pay due compensation to the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased. In claiming the compensation the petitioners further averred that the deceased was 50 years old at the time of his death. He was the only hope and aspiration of the petitioners. He died while working as a “Work Sarkar” under the Executive Engineer, C.M. Division No.1, Bhubaneswar. At the time of death, the deceased was earning Rs.3,152/-(Rupees Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Two only) salary per month. In justifying their claims the legal heirs have also filed the salary certificate of the deceased claiming that they are all legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioners also supported their case by filing the legal heir certificates. At the time of death, the deceased was earning Rs.3,152/-(Rupees Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Two only) salary per month. In justifying their claims the legal heirs have also filed the salary certificate of the deceased claiming that they are all legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioners also supported their case by filing the legal heir certificates. Upon receipt of the complain, a case was instituted by the Kharvela Nagar Police Station vide P.S.U.D. Case No.12/1997. After due investigation, a report was filed by the Police and the report as at column 12 discloses that the cause of death to be due to electric current. It is on this premises the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) considering the age of the 1/3rd deceased and by adopting ten multiplier after deducting 1/from double of the salary drawn relying on the decision in K.S.R.T.C.-vrs-Susama Thomas, 1994 (1) T.A.C., 323. In support of his contention Dr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel relied on decisions of this Court and other Courts in the cases of C.E.S.U vrs. Hema Sethi reported in 2011 (II) OLR 708 , Nirmal Nayak vrs. Chairman Gridco reported in 2005 (II) OLR 389 , Uttam Sahoo vrs. Chairman OSEB reported in 1996 (II) OLR 1999, Sambari Nayak vs. The CGM, Telecom Orissa Circle decided in WA 420/2011 disposed of vide Judgment dtd.29.06.2012, Pramila Khatua vs. CESU of Orissa reported in [2013] AIR (Orissa) 95 and Shriram Education Trust vrs. Mitaben 2011 (3) TAC 153, and claimed that in all these cases there is direction for award of compensation holding the supply company responsible for the incident. (3) Per contra, the opposite party on its appearance has filed a counter denying its responsibility. The opposite party alleged that the document under Annexure-1 filed by the petitioners nowhere discloses that the deceased died in electrocution. While denying the claims made by the petitioners, the opposite party submitted that there are no latches on its part. There is not only proper maintenance of the lines under the control of the GRIDCO to all the lines within the Bhubaneswar New Capital Area but those are also in absolute perfect condition. This being a sensitive area, maintenance staffs are doing day to day maintenance work regularly, besides the lines are inspected regularly. There is no question of having any rotten and old wire in the locality. This being a sensitive area, maintenance staffs are doing day to day maintenance work regularly, besides the lines are inspected regularly. There is no question of having any rotten and old wire in the locality. However, the opposite party while admitting the accident submitted in sub-para-1 at page 13 of its counter that the unprecedented accident was caused due to short-circuit on account of the fact that a Coconut tree branch fell over the L.T. Conductor as on that day there was heavy rain with storm and lightening. Thus claimed that the alleged incident to be treated as an Act of God. The department claimed that no negligence can be attributed to the department as it is an Act of God and the compensation should be denied. With regard to the claim of the petitioners relating to the salary that was drawn by the deceased at the time of the death, the department made a very casual denial by just denying the same. (4) Before stepping into decide the issue of compensation it is necessary to first go to the meaning of “negligence” which is the main limb of the case and it runs as follows:- According to Black’s Law dictionary 6th edition the term “negligence” has been defined as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do” According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition “Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.” According to the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia The fact or the character of being negligent or neglectful; deficiency in or lack of care, exactness, or application; the omitting to do, or a habit of omitting to do, things which ought to be done, or the doing of such things without sufficient attention and care; carelessness; heedless disregard of some duty. Specifically, in law, the failure to exercise that degree of care which the law requires for the protection of those interests of other persons which may be injuriously affected by the want of such care. Specifically, in law, the failure to exercise that degree of care which the law requires for the protection of those interests of other persons which may be injuriously affected by the want of such care. In Advanced Law Lexicon of 3rd Edition 2009, negligence has been defined as follows: “Negligence” is not an affirmative word, it is a negative word; it is the absence of such care, skill and diligence as it was the duty of the person to bring to the performance of the work, which he is said not to have performed.” Negligence may consist as well in not doing the thing which ought not to be done as in doing that which ought not to be done when in either case it has caused loss and damage to another. Negligence is “the absence of proper care, caution and diligence; of such care, caution and diligence, as under the circumstances reasonable and ordinary prudence would require to be exercised”. In the case of Donoghue v Stevens [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin stated that; 'You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour'. This is the establishment of a general duty of care. Now coming to know the meaning of the negligence as enumerated by the Hon’ble Apex Court through many of its judgments which runs as follows : In Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221 = AIR 2010 SC 1162 , the apex Court considering the meaning of ‘negligence’, held as follows: “Negligence is breach of duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence means either subjectively a careless state of mind, or objectively careless conduct. It is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. In determining whether negligence exists in a particular case, all the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances have to be taken into account. Negligence is strictly nonfeasance and not malfeasance. It is omission to do what the law requires, or failure to do anything in a manner prescribed by law. In determining whether negligence exists in a particular case, all the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances have to be taken into account. Negligence is strictly nonfeasance and not malfeasance. It is omission to do what the law requires, or failure to do anything in a manner prescribed by law. It is the act which can be treated as negligence without any proof as to the surrounding circumstances, because it is in violation of statute or ordinance or is contrary to dictates of ordinary prudence. In Jacob Mathew (supra) the apex Court considering the meaning of “negligence”, held as follows: “The jurisprudential concept of negligence defies any precise definition. In current forensic speech, negligence has three meanings. They are : (i) a state of mind, in which it is opposed to intention; (ii)careless conduct; and (iii) the breach of a duty to take care that is imposed by either common or statute law. All three meanings are applicable in different circumstances but any one of them does not necessarily exclude the other meanings.” In M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151 = 2001 SCC (Cri) 1426, the apex Court in para 14 stated as follows : “Negligence in common parlance means and implies “failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person”. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of the safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act. Negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack of proper care in doing something, in short, it is want of attention and doing of something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do. Though sometimes the word “inadvertence” stands and is used as a synonym to negligence, but in effect negligence represents a state of the mind which, is much more serious in nature than mere inadvertence. Though sometimes the word “inadvertence” stands and is used as a synonym to negligence, but in effect negligence represents a state of the mind which, is much more serious in nature than mere inadvertence. There is thus existing a differentiation between the two expressions-whereas inadvertence is a milder form of negligence, “negligence” by itself means and implies a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow.” In Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel, (1996) 4 SCC 332 , ‘negligence’ has been dealt with by the apex Court which has stated thus: 10 “Negligence as a tort is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition involves the following constituents: (1) a legal duty to exercise due care; (2) breach of the duty; and (3) consequential damages.” It is now necessary to notice the provisions contained in section 91 & 92 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which runs as follows :- “91. Safety and protective devices.-(1) Every overhead line erected over any part of street or other public place or in any factory or mine or on any consumers’ premises shall be protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks. (2) An Inspector may by notice in writing require the owner of any such overhead line wherever it may be erected to protect it in the manner specified in sub-rule (1). (3) The owner of every high and extra-high voltage overhead line shall make adequate arrangements to the satisfaction of the Inspector to prevent unauthorized persons from ascending any of the supports of such overhead lines which can be easily climbed upon without the help of a ladder or special appliances. Rails, reinforced cement concrete poles and pre-stressed cement concrete poles without steps, tubular poles, wooden supports without steps, [sections and channels shall be deemed as supports which cannot be easily climbed upon for the purpose of this rule.] 92. Protection against lightening.-(1) The owner of every overhead line [sub-station or generating station] which is so exposed as to be liable to injury from lightning shall adopt efficient means for diverting to earth any electrical surges due to lightening. Protection against lightening.-(1) The owner of every overhead line [sub-station or generating station] which is so exposed as to be liable to injury from lightning shall adopt efficient means for diverting to earth any electrical surges due to lightening. [(2) The earthing lead for any lightening arrestor shall not pass through any iron or steep pipe, but shall be taken as directly as possible from the In view of definition of negligence and under the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to hereinabove, and under the provisions contained at Rule 91 & 92 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 it is now to be considered as to whether there is any negligence on the part of the Electric Supply Company or not. (5) From the pleadings, as narrated hereinabove there is no dispute that the deceased has come in contact with the live electric wire. There is also no dispute that there was an accident in the particular area and as a result of which, the live wire got snapped and came in contact with the deceased. The department has very categorically admitted the accident in the 4th sub-para in the para 7 of their counter, where the department has categorically pleaded that unprecedented accident was caused due to short-circuit on account of Coconut tree branch fallen down over the L.T. Conductor due to heavy rain with storm and lightening in the locality on the fateful date. If the department was maintaining the lines by all operators in the locality regularly and properly, then there was no occasion of existence of any Coconut tree branch over or near their line. Observation on the situation of the plants and its branches is also a part of the duty of the establishment, had the required vigilant was maintained then accident would not have taken place. It is not justified in claiming the accident to be an Act of God. This establishes serious negligence on the part of the department and in such view of the matter plea that the accident is an Act of God and they are not responsible cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The department is duty bound to see the obstruction to their wire by any plant available in the locality also. This establishes serious negligence on the part of the department and in such view of the matter plea that the accident is an Act of God and they are not responsible cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The department is duty bound to see the obstruction to their wire by any plant available in the locality also. It is for their negligence there was existence of Coconut tree branches either over or near the electric line and they cannot shark such responsibilities. In view of the meaning of negligence given by different dictionaries and by the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court it can be safely answered that opposite party is negligent in maintaining its lines and thus the accident has occurred due to negligence act of the opposite party only. Further in view statutory responsibility entrusted upon the opposite party U/r.-91 & 92 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 as discussed (supra) the opposite party is also otherwise responsible for the accident. Rule 91 & 92 requires mandatory safety measures even in case of lightening also. Prescriptions vide Rule 91 & 92 of the Indian Electricity Rules have not been followed strictly. The death of the deceased on account of electrocution is reproduced on the face of document such as the final form as well as the post mortem report. Besides above the materials available on record also clearly establishes that the present writ petition was filed in the year 1997 and 17 valuable years have elapsed in the meanwhile and under the circumstances no suit will also now be entertainable at this stage. (6) So far as claim of salary in respect of the deceased is concerned while making such a claim the petitioners have not only made an averment by oath that the deceased was drawing Rs.3,152/-(Rupees Three thousand one hundred fifty two only) as salary per month. They have also filed a salary certificate as supplied to them vide office order No.10300 dtd.23.09.1997 and as issued to the petitioners by the Executive Engineer, C.M. Division No.1, Bhubaneswar. The opposite party even though has filed a detailed counter and taken a stand disputing the claim with regard to the salary of the deceased but failed to bring any material to the contrary. The opposite party even though has filed a detailed counter and taken a stand disputing the claim with regard to the salary of the deceased but failed to bring any material to the contrary. Further the salary certificate being issued by a competent Authority cannot be out rightly rejected in absence of any other material to the contrary. Hence, I accept the salary of the deceased at the relevant time as Rs.3,152/-(Rupees Three thousand one hundred fifty two only) per month and I proceed to assess compensation accordingly. (7) Considering the age of the deceased as evident from the documents available, was 50 years at the time of death and considering the salary of the deceased at Rs.3,152/-(Rupees Three thousand one hundred fifty two only) salary per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the same as his personal expenses his contribution to his family per month is taken as approximately to Rs.2,100/-(Rupees Two thousand one hundred only) per month which comes to approximately Rs.26,000/-(Rupees twenty-six thousand only) per annum and taking into account after improvements in the salary of the deceased consequently the contribution to the family, I assess the annual contribution to the family through the deceased to be at the minimum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty-thousand only) per annum. By adopting ten multiplier I assess the whole compensation to be paid to the petitioners by the department at Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four lakhs) which amount to be released in favour of the petitioners with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition within a period of two months from the date of judgment. (8) The writ petition succeeds to the extent directed hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as to cost.