ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. This case was heard on 30.08.2018 and 17.09.2018 was fixed for delivery of order. However, for paucity of time, order could not be delivered on 17.09.2018. Accordingly, order is delivered today. 2. Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL). 3. Question for consideration in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the claim for compensation by the petitioner on account of death of her husband due to electrocution. 4. According to the petitioner, her husband Harihar Nath had gone to visit the residence of his elder sister on 12.05.2013. On request of his sister, he stayed back in her residence that day. On the next day, i.e., on 13.05.2013, a group of labourers working under the contractor Shri Pradip Das came to the village of the sister for stretching of electrical wire under the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Electrification Scheme. While the group of labourers were trying to connect electricity wire near the house of Shri Akshay Das, a neighbouring villager, they requested the petitioner along with another person, namely, Banbahu Das to help them in the work. Husband of the petitioner and the other person went ahead to assist the labourers. While they were so engaged, they were electrocuted due to transmission of electricity from another wire because of which husband of the petitioner and Banbahu Das died on the spot. In the said accident, two of the labourers were also injured. 5. Son of Banbahu Das lodged first information before Salbari Police Station which was registered as Salbari PS (U/D) Case No. 2/2013 dated 13.05.2013. 6. On receipt of such first information, police personnel from the Salbari Police Station rushed to the place of occurrence and sent the dead-bodies to the Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta for post-mortem examination. In due course, postmortem examination report was obtained. 7. Husband of the petitioner used to work as daily wage labourer and from his earning, he maintained his family comprising of his wife (petitioner) and two minor daughters. In this connection, a death certificate dated 20.4.2015 was obtained by the petitioner. Petitioner has alleged negligence on the part of the APDCL authorities because of which her husband came in contact with a live wire leading to electrocution and instantaneous death. In this connection, a death certificate dated 20.4.2015 was obtained by the petitioner. Petitioner has alleged negligence on the part of the APDCL authorities because of which her husband came in contact with a live wire leading to electrocution and instantaneous death. Husband was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident. Due to death of husband of the petitioner, she and her minor daughters are left with no other source of livelihood. In such circumstances, petitioner had submitted a representation before the Chief General Manager, APDCL on 21.07.2015 for payment of compensation but without any success. 8. Aggrieved by inaction of the respondents on the claim of the petitioner, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 9. This Court by order dated 23.12.2015 had issued notice. 10. Respondent No. 4 in his affidavit filed on 28.07.2018 stated that an enquiry was conducted regarding the accident which took place on 13.05.2013 at village Bhuyanpara in the district of Baksa. Thereafter, enquiry report was prepared on the basis of detailed electrical accident report, post-mortem report and statements of eye witnesses. The enquiry report of electrical accident was submitted on 21.05.2018, copy of which has been annexed to the affidavit. 11. Respondent No. 5 in his affidavit has however denied any negligence on his part. It was because of contributory negligence on the part of petitioner's husband that the unfortunate accident took place leading to loss of his life. 12. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record. 13. Section 161 of the Electricity Act. 2003 deals with notice of accidents and inquiries. As per sub-section (1), if any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with any part of electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such authorities as the appropriate Government may by general or special order direct. As per sub-section (2), the appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector or any other person appointed by it in this behalf, to enquire and report as to the cause of any accident affecting safety of the public which may have been occasioned by or in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity and regarding compliance with the relevant statutory provisions affecting safety of any person. Sub-section (3) provides that while conducting such enquiry, Electrical Inspector shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding attendance of witnesses and production of documents. 14. In terms of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003, an enquiry was conducted by the office of the Chief Electrical Inspector, Inspectorate of Electricity, Govt. of Assam where after enquiry report dated 21.05.2018 was submitted. As per the report, accident took place on 13.05.2013 at village Bhuyanpara under Salbari Police Station in the district of Baksa. Accident was fatal. Supplier of electricity was APDCL which was also the owner. Victim was identified as Harihar Nath. Enquiry was conducted by Shri Utpal Konwar, Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector assisted by Shri Bhabananda Pathak, Electrical Inspector. 15. Enquiry report disclosed that as per the post-mortem report of the Assistant Surgeon, Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, death was due to syncope as a result of ante-mortem electrocution. The enquiry report disclosed the circumstances leading to the accident. Electrical contractor Shri Pradip Das had engaged his persons for stretching a LT Overhead Line under Rajiv Gandhi Rural Electrification Scheme. While the team of Shri Pradip Das tried to draw the electrical line near the house of Akshya Das @ Ajay Das, victim Harihar Nath along with the other person were requested to help the team in their line stretching work. While the victim was stretching the electric conductor, suddenly the conductor/wire came in contact with the HT line conductor which existed on the same electrical pole. Thus, he got electric shock and died on the spot. 16. The report stated that Electrical Contractor Shri Pradip Das had engaged the victim in the line stretching work. The contractor did not get the 11 KV line shut down by the APDCL which existed on the poles to which the stretched lines were supposed to be fastened. Thus, he got electric shock and died on the spot. 16. The report stated that Electrical Contractor Shri Pradip Das had engaged the victim in the line stretching work. The contractor did not get the 11 KV line shut down by the APDCL which existed on the poles to which the stretched lines were supposed to be fastened. Victim was a layman and had no knowledge of electricity. Victim was stretching the conductor/wire with bare hands. He was not given any tool or devices for protecting himself from electrical injury. When the wire which the victim was holding for stretching came in contact with the live 11 KV line conductor that became live and as a result husband of the petitioner got electric shock and ultimately died of electrocution. The enquiry report mentioned that there were contraventions of three provisions of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulations, 2010 (2010 Regulations), namely, Regulations 19(1), 19(2) and 19(3). As per Regulation 19(1), before any conductor or apparatus is handled, adequate precautions should be taken by earthing or by other suitable means to discharge electricity and to prevent any conductor or apparatus from being accidentally or inadvertently electrically charged when persons are working thereon. Regulation 19(2) provides that every person who is working on an electric supply line or apparatus or both shall be provided with tools and devices, such as, gloves, rubber shoes, safety belts, ladders etc. As per Regulation 19(3), no person shall work on any live electric supply line or apparatus and no person shall assist such person on such work unless he is designated in that behalf and takes the safety precautions given in Schedule-III. As per the enquiry report, the above provisions were contravened by the contractor who had engaged the victim. 17. Thus from the enquiry report submitted by the Inspectorate of Electricity, Govt. of Assam dated 21.05.2018, enquiry was conducted under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 whereafter enquiry officer remarked that the deceased had died due to electrocution which had occasioned because of contravention of aforesaid provisions of the 2010 Regulations. 18. In M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162 , Supreme Court examined the concept of strict liability. 18. In M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162 , Supreme Court examined the concept of strict liability. Supreme Court held that even assuming that all safety measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under the 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. Basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. Such a liability is known in law as strict liability. 19. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English common law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL 330. Subsequently, Courts in England have consistently approved and followed the rule of strict liability. 20. In so far India is concerned, the rule of strict liability have become firmly embedded in the system of jurisprudence prevailing in the country which found its manifestation in the case of Shail Kumari (supra). 21. Even prior to that, in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 , Supreme Court held that where an enterprise is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused to anyone on account of an 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 exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Reynalds Vs. Fletcher (supra). 22. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100 , Supreme Court dwelt at length on the concept of constitutional tort and compensatory jurisprudence. Referring to the development of law on this branch of jurisprudence starting from Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 and Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 , it was held that if the fundamental rights of a citizen are infringed, then the liability of the State, its officials and instrumentals is strict. Referring to the development of law on this branch of jurisprudence starting from Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 and Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 , it was held that if the fundamental rights of a citizen are infringed, then the liability of the State, its officials and instrumentals is strict. Claim raised for compensation in such a case is not a private law claim for damages but it for compensating the claimant for deprivation of life and personal liberty which has nothing to do with a private law claim in tort in a civil court. Supreme Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution has to be read into all public safety statutes since the prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual and to compensate him for the loss suffered. Duty of care expected from the State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is, therefore, very high, compared to the statutory powers and supervision expected from officers functioning under the statutes like Companies Act, Cooperative Societies Act and such other similar legislations. 23. While ordinarily compensation paid under the public law remedy is palliative in nature, but making a departure therefrom, in Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (supra), Supreme Court held that compensation by way of public law remedy need not be a nominal palliative amount but can be by way of making monetary amount necessary to recoup/replace what was lost or by way of exemplary damages, exclusive of any amount recoverable in a civil action based on tortuous liability which is generally awarded to place the claimant in the position he would have been had the tort not taken place under the headings general damages and special damages. 24. In Khiradabala Nath Vs. Assam State Electricity Board, 2008 (4) GLT 116, a Single Bench of this Court while dealing with the question of quantum of compensation payable in such cases, held that the mechanism of multiplier as envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can very well be put to use in such a situation. Since in awarding such compensation, there will always be an element of guesswork, to eliminate the possibility of wide fluctuations in determination of compensation, recourse may be had to the mechanism of multiplier. 25. Since in awarding such compensation, there will always be an element of guesswork, to eliminate the possibility of wide fluctuations in determination of compensation, recourse may be had to the mechanism of multiplier. 25. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that victim was about 35 years of age at the time of the accident. It has come on record that deceased was a daily labourer and had a family of three (excluding him) to look after. Therefore, multiplier will be 16. Considering that the deceased was a daily labourer, it can safely be inferred that his monthly income would be around Rs. 3,000/-. If 1/3rd is deducted from this amount on account of personal expenses, monthly expenditure of the family will come to around Rs. 2,000/-. The compensation amount thus works out as under:- Rs. 2000 x 12 x 16 = 3,84,000.00 (which can be rounded off to Rs. 4 lakhs). 26. In the light of the discussions made above, respondents, namely, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,00,000.00 (four lakhs) only to the petitioner. The said amount shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order whereafter petitioner would be entitled to withdraw the said amount on proper identification. Notwithstanding such payment, it would be open to the petitioner to avail her private law remedy for further compensation, if so advised. 27. Writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.