JUDGMENT MR. BISWANATH RATH, J.- The Petitioner, who is a minor alleging to be suffering from electrocution, has filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction directing the Opp. Parties to pay compensation amounting to Rs.6,75,000 (rupees six lakhs seventy-five thousand) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of mishap till payment. The facts as narrated by the Petitioner is that the victim while going to give food to her father on 30.05.2011 came in contact with an electric wire of 11 K. V. connection suddenly snapped from the pole & fell on the head & consequently the right hand of the Petitioner got burnt. During her treatment the doctor was compelled to ampute 1/3rd of the right hand fore-arm of the Petitioner. The family of the Petitioner got terribly disturbed & as they were attending the victim in the hospital they lodged F.I.R. in the Jankia Police' Station vide P.S. Case No.140 of 2011 on 09.07.2011. It is alleged that Chief District Medical Officer, Khurda examined the Petitioner & granted a Disability Certificate against the Petitioner indicating disability up to 70%. The Petitioner has also filed a copy of the said Disability Certificate in the Writ Petition. It is further alleged by the Petitioner that the Petitioner was hardly 13 years at the time of the incident & she is a girl child from a poor family. Due to negligence of the Opp. Parties, she became disabled with 70% & suffering although her life. The family of the Petitioner spent lot of money for her treatment & approached severally to the Opp. Parties for compensation on the suffering of the Petitioner for their negligence but, the Opp. Parties did not co-operate in the matter rather avoided the claim of the Petitioner taking some plea or other. The Petitioner finding no alternative approached this Court & claimed compensation amount of Rs.6,75,000 (rupees six lakhs seventy- five thousand) along with interest @12% per annum from the date of mishap. . 2. Per contra, the Opp. Parties on their appearance filed a counter strongly denying the allegations made against them. The Opp. Parties in their counter went to the extent of submitting that the accident as narrated by the Petitioner was beyond the knowledge of the Opp. Parties, they have even gone to the extent of denying that there is no accident even. Opp. Parties on their appearance filed a counter strongly denying the allegations made against them. The Opp. Parties in their counter went to the extent of submitting that the accident as narrated by the Petitioner was beyond the knowledge of the Opp. Parties, they have even gone to the extent of denying that there is no accident even. Opp. Parties have also submitted to lack any knowledge of any F.I.R. being lodged by Jaykrushna Sehera, the grandfather of the Petitioner & they strongly disputed the disability certificate. The Opp. Parties refused to accept the responsibility on the ground that there was no information at all to them of this accident at any point of time. The Opp. Parties further submitted that there is no material to prove on spending for her treatment. They disputed the allegation of suffering by the Petitioner on account of electrocution. It is in these premises, the Opp. Parties claimed that the present dispute cannot be decided in a matter in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Opp. Party No.3 filed an additional counter affidavit 0 07.01.2014 indicating therein that the aforesaid accident has been enquired by the Sub-divisional Officer (Electrical), Jankia on 31.05.2011 & the said Sub-divisional Officer (Electrical), Jankia submitted a report clearly indicating therein that some miscreants cut the existing stay wire on the 11 K. V. line at Rambhabilly for which the pole became bend & the 11 K.V. conductor (one spam) was in sagging position for which the above non-fatal accident occurred. Considering the said theft, the Junior Engineer of Jankia Electrical Section submitted an F.I.R. in Jankia Police Station alleging the said incident dated 30.05.2011. In filing this affidavit, even though the Opp. Party No.3 denied any negligence attributed to the Department but claimed that the accident was unintentional & due to mischief played by the miscreants & said act can be called as act of God. In concluding the Opp. Party No.3 submitted that in view of disputed question of facts, the matter can be adjudicated in Civil Court. The counter affidavit filed by, the Opp. Parties on 03.05.2011 is far from the averments made in the counter by the Opp. Party No.3 along with other Opp. Parties in their combined counter denied the incident to have occurred. At the same time the Opp. The counter affidavit filed by, the Opp. Parties on 03.05.2011 is far from the averments made in the counter by the Opp. Party No.3 along with other Opp. Parties in their combined counter denied the incident to have occurred. At the same time the Opp. Party No.3, in categorical term not .only admitted the incident but also produced the record to establish that there is an enquiry involving in the incident on 31.05.2011 & they found that the accident has taken place due to miscreants taking away the existing stay wire & the accident has occurred due to mischief committed by the miscreants. The Opp. Party No.3 in its independent counter also submitted that its officer filed an F.I.R. categorically indicating that such an incident has taken place in the locality in the said F.I.R., the Junior Engineer has also specifically mentioned that due to aforesaid mischief, the Petitioner came in contact with the wire & has suffered. 3. In view of the aforesaid affidavit, there is no dispute that there is an accident due to snapping of wire & there is no dispute that due to cause of said snapping of wire, the Petitioner became the victim & she has suffered. The certificate on disability as granted by the Team of Orthopedicians engaged in District Headquarter Hospital, Khurda also clearly indicates that the Petitioner has suffered 70% disability. The final form in the F.I.R. at the instance of grandfather of the Petitioner also indicates that the Petitioner has suffered due to electric bum. Under the above circumstances, I hold the Opp. Parties responsible for the incident & the Petitioner has suffered on account of the accident, i.e., due to negligence of their's as they have failed to perform their duties as enshrined under Rules 91 & 92 of the Orissa Electricity Rules, 1956 & as such they are liable to pay compensation. Under the above circumstances, I hold the Opp. Parties responsible for the incident & the Petitioner has suffered on account of the accident, i.e., due to negligence of their's as they have failed to perform their duties as enshrined under Rules 91 & 92 of the Orissa Electricity Rules, 1956 & as such they are liable to pay compensation. Delving with compensation part, I would like to discuss the definition of negligence as well the interpretation of word negligence by the Hon'ble Apex Court which 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 & 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 & 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 & 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. 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 & diligence as 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 & damage to another. Negligence is "the absence of proper care, caution & diligence; of such care, caution & diligence, as under the circumstances reasonable & ordinary prudence would require to be exercised". Negligence is "the absence of proper care, caution & diligence; of such care, caution & diligence, as under the circumstances reasonable & 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 & 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 & surrounding facts & circumstances have to be taken into account. Negligence is strictly nonfeasance & 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; & (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 anyone of them does not necessarily exclude the other meanings. They are: (i) a state of mind, in which it is opposed to intention; (ii) careless conduct; & (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 anyone 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 & implies "failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person". It is a breach of duty & 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 & doing of something which a prudent & a reasonable man would not do. Though sometimes the word "inadvertence" stands & 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 & implies a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care & 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 & reasonable man would not do. The definition involves the following constituents: (1) a legal duty to exercise due care; (2) breach of the duty; & (3) consequential damages." It is now necessary to notice the provisions contained in S. 91 & 92 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which runs as follows :"91. The definition involves the following constituents: (1) a legal duty to exercise due care; (2) breach of the duty; & (3) consequential damages." It is now necessary to notice the provisions contained in S. 91 & 92 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which runs as follows :"91. Safety & protective devices.- (1) Every overhead line erected over any part of street or other public pi e 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 & 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 & pre-stressed cement concrete poles without steps, tubular poles, wooden supports without steps, [Sections & 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. (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 & Under the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to hereinabove, & 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. Under the findings at paragraph-3 hereinabove & in view of the definition of !1egligence as narrated hereinabove, I am of conclusion that the Opp. Parties have neglected in maintaining the line in their custody & they are responsible for the injury sustained by the Petitioner, a girl child & likely to suffer all through her life. 4. Under the findings at paragraph-3 hereinabove & in view of the definition of !1egligence as narrated hereinabove, I am of conclusion that the Opp. Parties have neglected in maintaining the line in their custody & they are responsible for the injury sustained by the Petitioner, a girl child & likely to suffer all through her life. 4. The material produced in the case amply establishes that the Petitioner way not only a girl child but also hardly 13 years old. For her amputati9n of 1/3 rd portion of the right hand forearm & she is likely to suffer throughout her life. Taking into account bare minimum the immediate necessity for running of a girl child to be at least Rs.100 (rupees one hundred) per day, I calculate her monthly entitlement to be Rs.3,000 (rupees three thousand) per month & taking the same to account the annual income will be at Rs.36,000 (rupees thirty-six thousand) per annum. 5. Considering the age of the girl as 13 (thirteen) at the time of accident & taking into consideration the life expectancy of a girl, I allow her at least 20 multiply, which brings the total compensation to Rs.7,20,000 (rupees seven lakhs twenty thousand) considering her claim made in the writ, I confine the compensation at Rs.6,75,000 (rupees six lakhs seventy five thousand) only as a whole & such amount will be released in her favour with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of the Writ Petition. I further direct that since the Petitioner is a minor, 50% of the compensation with accrued interest will be kept in fixed deposit in her name in any nationalized bank at least for a period of 10 years & the rest 50% will be granted in her favour to allow to have her future plans & present maintenance. 6. The Writ Petition succeeds to the extant directed above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.