ORDER : 1. In all these cases, the question of maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for claiming compensation in the cases of death or injury caused by the electrocution arises? 2. The learned counsels for the petitioners relying upon certain judgments before this Court has sought to submit that the Court can grant compensation in writ jurisdiction in cases of death or injury, particularly where the tortuious liability is admitted by the Respondent- Electricity Distribution Companies like BESCOM, KPTCL etc. 3. On the other hand, the objection about the maintainability of the writ petitions was raised by the learned counsels appearing for the Respondents-Electricity Distribution Companies. Both the sides relied upon the judgments to support their rival contentions. 4. On the one hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following judgments: (i) Raman vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2014) 15 SCC 1 (ii) Smt. Manjula & Another vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. & Others, W.P. Nos. 23169-23170/2010 decided on 14.10.2011 (iii) Eshappa vs. The Chief Engineer (Electricity), GESCOM, Bellary & Another, 2007 (1) Kar. L.J. 321 5. On the other hand, the Respondents have relied upon the following decisions in support of their contentions: (i) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. Sumathi & Others, (2000) 4 SCC 543 (ii) S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Others vs. Timudu Oram, 2005 (6) Supreme 209 (iii) Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Others vs. Sukamani Das and Another, AIR 1999 SC 3412 (iv) Mrs. Ashwini Manoj Patil & Others vs. BESCOM, Bangalore & Others, 2016 (5) Kar. L.J. 511 6. The latest decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Mrs. A.M. Patil & Others vs. BESCOM (supra), discussing the previous decisions cited at the bar has held that the filing of civil suit is the appropriate remedy in such cases and as such, the compensation cannot be determined and awarded in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraphs 9 to 11 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: “9. The relevant paragraphs 9 to 11 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: “9. Of course there is no issue with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Gupta and Others (supra), Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera (supra) and Union Carbide Corporation and Others (supra) that monitory compensation can be granted for contravention of fundamental rights as there is, indeed, a distinction between the remedy available in public law and the remedy available in private law. The remedy available in public law is distinct from and in addition to the remedy available in private law for damages. Furthermore, if the facts are indisputable, the petitioners would be justified in seeking compensation by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. However, the moot issue before this court is, whether the facts regarding the cause of death of Mr. Patil are indisputable or not? Although Mr. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, would like this court to believe that the facts are indisputable, but, the documents submitted by the petitioners themselves envelop the issue of cause of death in a shroud of mystery. Firstly, the two injuries revealed in the Post-Mortem Report prima-facie do not point to electrocution. Secondly, even the Doctors who conducted the Post-Mortem, even they were unsure as to the cause of death. Thus, the experts themselves were hesitant to pinpoint the cause of death till the Histopathology report was received. Thirdly, even the Histopathology report claims that the possibility of electrocution can be considered. But, it does not specifically speak of electrocution as the cause of death. Fourthly, neither the report of the Electrical Inspectorate, nor the report of the Assistant Engineer, nor the statement of the Junior Engineer recorded by the police revealed that there was a leakage of electric current in the steel fence surrounding the transformer. According to the two reports and the statement of the Junior Engineer there was no leakage of electricity in the installation, or in the HT cable, LT Feeder, Filler and the LT Cable on the date of accident. Therefore, these reports further create a doubt about the cause of Mr. Patil's death. Therefore, what is the plausible cause of his death is riddled with doubts. 11. Therefore, these reports further create a doubt about the cause of Mr. Patil's death. Therefore, what is the plausible cause of his death is riddled with doubts. 11. These doubts can be cleared by the petitioners only by filing a civil suit for damages, where they would have ample opportunities for submitting oral and documentary evidence to establish that Mr. Patil died due to electrocution. However, the complicated issue of the cause of his death cannot be decided by this court in a writ jurisdiction. Although the writ jurisdiction is meant to protect the civil and fundamental rights of the people, but the said jurisdiction should not be invoked by this court when disputed question of facts, which require oral and documentary evidence, are raised. Since the present case involves disputed question of facts, this court is not inclined to invoke its writ jurisdiction.” 7. On the other hand, in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India have upheld the compensation awarded by the High Courts in such cases in some cases under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the order passed by one of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Manjula & Others vs. BESCOM, the learned Single Judge even held, in a case of theft of electricity by the deceased and family members, that it was the duty of the Respondent-BESCOM to take action against such illegal theft of electricity and applying the principle of strict liability, the learned Single Judge adopting the principles of awarding compensation in the cases of motor vehicle accidents, granted the compensation in the cases of electrocution. The relevant paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said order are quoted below for ready reference: “5. It is a common place that whenever public celebrations are done, the persons who organizes such public celebrations would freely without any inhibition draw power from supply lines. The electricity authorities keep themselves deliberately blinded and they do not take any action against such illegal theft of electricity. The electricity company in this case has not taken any proper preventive action to prevent theft of electricity to be used freely without any proper precaution to prevent risk of public danger. The electricity authorities keep themselves deliberately blinded and they do not take any action against such illegal theft of electricity. The electricity company in this case has not taken any proper preventive action to prevent theft of electricity to be used freely without any proper precaution to prevent risk of public danger. In that view of the matter, the respondents 1 and 2 would be very much liable under the principle of strict liability enunciated in Paramjit Kaur and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2010 ACJ 957 . The plea is that the respondents are also liable for negligent maintenance in supply of power. The contention that there was proper diligence and care taken on the part of respondent No. 1 and 2 is not tenable and they cannot avoid liability in case of “strict liability.” In that view of the matter, the respondents 1 & 2 cannot avoid liability to pay the compensation. 6. The contention that the case involves investigation into complicated questions of facts. The writ petitions are not maintainable is untenable. The documentary evidence produced ex-facie discloses that Nagaraj died on account of electrocution and that the respondents 1 & 2 would be very much liable to pay the compensation on the principle of strict liability. With regard to quantum of compensation, the law is well settled. In the case of motor vehicles accidents, the multiplier system is adopted. The said method is a full proof system for assessing the damages. In that view of the matter, the multiplier system if adopted, it does not offer any difficulty for the Court to assess the compensation in the present case. 7. The deceased is said to be an agriculturist. In the absence of credible proof of income, the income be assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. 1/3rd be deducted towards personal expenses. Rs. 2,000/- would enure to the benefit of the dependants. The deceased is aged about 38 years and therefore ‘14’ multiplier will apply. The total loss of dependency would be Rs. 2,000/- (12 x 14 = Rs. 3,36,000/-) towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the wife, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to parents, Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,21,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment. 2,000/- (12 x 14 = Rs. 3,36,000/-) towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the wife, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to parents, Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,21,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment. Out of the compensation amount awarded, 2/3rd of the compensation will be paid to the first petitioner and 1/3rd of the compensation will be paid to the second petitioner.” 9. The learned counsel for the Respondents-companies were unable to point out whether any Intra-Court Appeal was preferred against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge or not and whether the said judgment holds the field even now. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even the compensation awarded in that cases stood paid to the petitioners. 11. In the circumstances narrated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for not only determining the question of facts like the cause of accident, negligence of Electricity Distribution Companies or not, but on the other hand also, which criteria is to be adopted for determining the amount of compensation is also a material question. 12. The decisions cited at the bar do not appear to have referred to the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, which actually covers the field of such cases of accidents and cause of death, where on the basis of tortuious liability can be fixed on the Respondents- Electricity Distribution Companies. 13. The preamble of the said Act is that, it is an Act to provide compensation to families for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by actionable wrong. It is a 4 Sections Act and including its preamble provides for the compensation where no action or suit is maintainable in any Court against a person who by his wrongful act, neglect or default, may have caused the death of another person. The relevant provisions of the said Act with its preamble are quoted below for ready reference: “THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT, 1855 An Act to provide compensation to families for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by actionable wrong. The relevant provisions of the said Act with its preamble are quoted below for ready reference: “THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT, 1855 An Act to provide compensation to families for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by actionable wrong. Preamble - WHEREAS no action or suit is now maintainable in any Court against a person who, by his wrongful act, neglect or default, may have caused the death of another person, and it is oftentimes right and expedient that the wrongdoer in such case should be answerable in damages for the injury so caused by him. It is enacted as follows: 1. Short title and extent: (1) This Act may be called the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. [1A.] Suit for compensation to the family of a person for loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong — Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony or other crime. Every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased. Every such action, the court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought and the amount so recovered, after deducting all costs and expenses, including the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before mentioned parties, or any of them, in such shares as the court by its judgment or decree shall direct. COMMENTS (i) Under section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, compensation awarded for loss of dependency, worked out by applying the principle of multiplier is a part of damages “proportioned to the loss resulting from the death” Fizabai v. Nemi Chand, AIR 1993 MP 79 . (ii) Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 read with section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Now see Motor Vehicles Act, 1998), makes it obligatory on the tribunal to award “just compensation” which differs from case to case - Sardar Ishwar Singh v. Himachal Puri, AIR 1990 MP 282 . (iii) The maintainability of the claim for damages on account of the agony suffered by wife cannot be claimed by the plaintiff in a representative capacity. As husband he can claim damages either under the Fatal Accidents Act or under, the Motor Vehicles Act, M.L. Singhal v. Dr. Pradeep Mathur, AIR 1996 Del. 261 . 2. Not more than one suit to be brought. Provided always that not more than one action or suit shall be brought for, and in respect of the same subject-matter of complaint: Claim for loss to estate may be added: Provided that, in any such action or suit, the executor, administrator or representative of the deceased may insert a claim for and recover any pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased occasioned by such wrongful act, neglect or default, which sum, when recovered, shall be deemed part of the assets of the estate of the deceased. 3. Plaintiff shall deliver particulars, etc. - The plaint in any such action or suit shall give a full particular of the person or persons for whom, or on whose behalf, such action or suit shall be brought, and of the nature of the claim in respect of which damages shall be sought to be recovered. 4. Interpretation clause - The following words and expressions are intended to have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, so far as such meanings are not excluded by the context or by the nature of the subject-matter; that is to say the word person shall apply to bodies politic and corporate; and the word “parent” shall include father and mother and grandfather and grandmother; and the word “child” shall include son and daughter and grandson and granddaughter and stepson and stepdaughter.” 14. In view of this, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be not appropriate to invoke the writ jurisdiction in such cases and arbitrarily determine the compensation without any yardsticks or parameters. 15. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Raman vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Others was rendered in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which power this Court does not have and therefore, the said decision does not decide the question, whether the writ petition in such case is maintainable or not. 16. In the circumstances narrated above, this Court holds that these writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the claimants/petitioners should approach the Civil Courts by way of civil suits, where all these question of facts can be established with relevant evidence proved in accordance with law. The delay in filing such suits, even now, however deserves to be condoned, since the petitioners availed a remedy which this Court at this stage is holding to be misconceived and not maintainable. 17. Therefore, the petitions are disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioners to file appropriate civil suits in competent civil courts and if such civil suits are filed within a period of 60 days from today, the Courts below, where such suits are filed are directed not to raise an objection of limitation in such cases but proceed to decide the suits on merits in accordance with law. No costs.