JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri. D. Battacharjee, learned standing counsel for APDCL and Ms. K. Phukan, the learned State counsel. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay compensation for the death against the husband of the petitioner by electrocution. 3. The facts as projected in the writ petition is that the husband of the petitioner Dasarath Basumatary who was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Patkijuli M.E. School, Tamulpur had died out of electrocution on 01.03.2011 at about 4:30 pm. At that time, the deceased was aged about 46 years. The learned counsel Shri. Mannaf submits that accident of the present nature come within the ambit of strict liability and therefore, the compensation prayed is fully justified. Referring to the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, presently holding the field, the learned counsel submits that for different ages, different consolidated compensation have been laid down and in the instant case having regard to the age of the deceased which is 46 years, the prescribed compensation of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs which the petitioner is entitled to. 4. Shri D. Battacherjee, learned Standing Counsel APDCL however submits that in normal case of electrocution there is hardly any dispute on such entitlement. However in the instant case, the Post Mortem report which is the clinching document regarding the cause of the death, does not give a clear picture as regards the cause of the death of the deceased. Referring to the Post Mortem report enclosed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, the learned Standing counsel submits that the column containing the opinion as the cause of death is ambiguous wherein it has written as follows: "In my opinion, death is due to Cardio respiratory failure following". Since the cause of death is not clearly stated, recourse to the Office Memorandum for payment of compensation cannot be taken into. 5. Ms. K. Phukan, learned State counsel also endorses the submission of the learned standing counsel for APDCL. 6. Since the cause of death is not clearly stated, recourse to the Office Memorandum for payment of compensation cannot be taken into. 5. Ms. K. Phukan, learned State counsel also endorses the submission of the learned standing counsel for APDCL. 6. Rejoining the submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Mannaf however refers to the report of the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam, which has been enclosed to the affidavit filed by the said authority dated 20.02.2013, which has been issued in respect of the deceased in question, the brief description to the electrocution of the deceased has been stated as: "The electrical installation in the victims residential premises got power from nearby pole mounted sub-station of APDCL. After inspection of the site, it appeared that, due to contact between conductors of 11000 volts with conductor of 230 Volts supply system to the victims residence the accident occurred. The victim seeing smoke and fire in the electrical appliances of his residence had tried to switch off the main switch of his residence as a result of which he got electrocuted." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the final report of the Police in connection with the case registered in Tamulpur P.S. U/D Case No. 3/2011, in which it has been categorically stated that the deceased had died due to electric shock while he was pulling down the cut-out of his house at the time of electric defect on the concerned Transformer. Though the opinion made in the Post Mortem report has also been extracted in the final report, the authority making the final report has mentioned about the incident in a clear manner. 8. Though Shri. Battacharjee, learned Standing counsel for APDCL may be right in contending that in absence of a Post Mortem report indicating the clear cause of death of the deceased due to electrocution, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction may not be proper forum for redressal of the grievances, however, on examination of the other contemporaneous documents including the report of the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector which is of outmost importance in connection with electrocution case, read with the final police report there cannot be any doubt that the death had occurred out of electrocution and that no negligence can be attributed to the deceased. 9. 9. Having come to the aforesaid finding, the aid to the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, has to be taken for determining the compensation which is payable to the petitioner being the wife of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased is aged about 46 years and therefore, falls within the category of "20 years to 55 years" for which an amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs is stipulated. 10. In view of the above discussion and taking the aid of the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents APDCL to make payment of compensation amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. 11. The aforesaid amount may be disbursed and paid to the petitioner with a period of 2 (two) months from today. At this stage, Shri. Battacharjee, learned standing counsel for APDCL prays for a liberty to deposit the amount in the Registry of this Court. Liberty as prayed for is granted. On such deposit, the Registry may release the amount to the petitioner on being properly identified. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.