JUDGMENT : CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make following corrections in the description of Respondents No 1 and 2 by way of substituting the words and figure as under:- “1. The South Bihar Power Distribution Co Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Managing Director; 2. The Deputy Secretary, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna. 2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 3 It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s husband died of electrocution on 03.11.2019. An Unnatural Death Case was registered on the same day. The Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission, Patna has framed Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents Regulations, 2018 (Regulations for short) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 181 (1) and 181 (2) (za) read with Sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and other powers enabling it in this behalf. Regulation 4 of the said Regulations reads as under: “4. Liability for compensation:- (1) The licensee failing to meet the standards of performance specified in Regulation 3 above shall be liable to pay compensation as specified in these Regulations to the person affected for loss of human or animal life or injury to human beings or animals or property in consequence of an electrical accident. Liability for compensation:- (1) The licensee failing to meet the standards of performance specified in Regulation 3 above shall be liable to pay compensation as specified in these Regulations to the person affected for loss of human or animal life or injury to human beings or animals or property in consequence of an electrical accident. (2) Whether or not there has been any wrongful act, omission, rashness, neglect or default on the part of the licensee and generating companies as the case may be as would entitle the person affected to maintain a civil action for recovery of any damages or compensation or maintain a prosecution for invoking criminal liability in respect thereof, the licensees and generating companies as the case may be shall notwithstanding anything contained in any other law in force, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as specified in these Regulations, if an electrical accident occurs, resulting in loss of human or animal life or injury to human beings or animals unless the electrical accident primarily was not due to the failure of the licensee generating companies as the case may be to meet the standards of performance but was a direct or proximate result of intervention of some other extraneous reason or cause: Provided that if the loss of human life is due to suicide or homicide or the injury to a human being is due to an attempt to commit suicide or homicide, the licensee generating companies as the case may be shall not be liable to pay any compensation for the same under these Regulations.” (Underlined for emphasis) 4. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited (for brevity, the Company), which is a licensee within the meaning of Section 2 (39) read with Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has issued guidelines for disposal of claims for grant of compensation under the said Regulation. Admittedly, the petitioner had made an application before the Executive Engineer, Chandi, Nalanda of the Company for grant of compensation under the Regulations. The said application contained recommendation of the local Mukhiya and concerned Block Development Officer (for brevity, BDO), Tharthari. The petitioner’s claim for grant of compensation has, however, been rejected by the Respondent Company by an order dated 30.06.2020 (Annexure 5) which is under challenge in the present writ application. The said application contained recommendation of the local Mukhiya and concerned Block Development Officer (for brevity, BDO), Tharthari. The petitioner’s claim for grant of compensation has, however, been rejected by the Respondent Company by an order dated 30.06.2020 (Annexure 5) which is under challenge in the present writ application. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Company, a plea has been taken that it was not out of any fault on the part of the Company that the petitioner’s husband got electrocuted rather the petitioner’s husband had made an attempt to cure the defects cropped up in the service wire, for the purpose of restoring the electric connection illegally and in that course, he got electrocuted and subsequently died. It is, accordingly, the case of the Company that petitioner's claim for payment of compensation under the Regulations was rightly rejected. The counter affidavit, however, does not disclose any material basis for the competent authority to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner’s deceased husband got electrocuted because of his own fault. In such view of the matter, in order to appreciate the basis for the Company’s refusal to petitioner’s claim for compensation, we had called for the original records of the Company which had dealt with the petitioner’s claim for payment of compensation. 5. We must note at this juncture that from the impugned order, it had transpired to the Court that the petitioner’s claim was rejected on the basis of an enquiry report, vaguely mentioned in the impugned order. In the said background, the Court deemed it proper to peruse the said enquiry report which was the sole basis for rejection of the petitioner’s claim. 6. The original records have been produced before us by Mr Vinay Kirti Singh, learned senior counsel representing the Respondent-Company. On perusal of the original records, we notice that the petitioner's application contain notings, made by the Mukhiya of concerned Gram Panchayat Raj Amera and the concerned Block Development Officer (BDO), Tharthari. The BDO Tharthari had recorded in his noting that the petitioner was a member of Below Poverty Line (BPL) family and that her husband died of electrocution after having come in contact with a dilapidated electric wire which was seen hanging in the street in front of the victim’s house. He had recommended payment of compensation in accordance with law. 7. He had recommended payment of compensation in accordance with law. 7. We have perused the enquiry report of Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Chandi (Nalanda) available in the original records, which was apparently the sole basis for rejection of the petitioner’s claim. The enquiry report is being reproduced verbatim hereinbelow:- tkWap izfrosnu ^^;g ?kVuk fnukad 03-11-19 dks xzk0 vroy foxgk] iks0& Hkrgj] Fkkuk&FkjFkjh ftyk ukyUnk esa ?kVk FkkA ,Q vkbZ vkj dkih rFkk iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ esa le; dk feyku ugha gks jgk gS ,oa xzkeh.kksa ds }kjk ?kVuk dh vyx&vyx le; dh tkudkjh izkIr gqbZ gS blfy, bl dkj.ko'k le; dk dksbZ fooj.k ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA budk miHkksDrk la0 21940032908 gS tks fcuk foHkkx dks lwpuk fn, gq, lfoZl ok;j voS/k :i ls Bhd dj jgs FksA mlh Øe esa fo/kqr dh pisV esa vk dj fo/kqr Li'kkZ?kkr dh f'kdkj gks x;sA blesa dksbZ Hkh deZpkjh ;k inkf/kdkjh dk nks"k izrhr ugha gksrk gSA** A near English translation of the aforementioned report would read as under:- Enquiry Report “This incident occurred on 03.11.2019 at Village – Atwal Bigha, Post – Bhathar, PS – Tharthari. The time is not matching in the FIR copy and Post Mortem Report. As there is contradiction in the time given by the villagers, therefore, time cannot be described. His consumer No is 21940032908 who was curing the defects cropped up in the service wire illegally and without informing the Department and in that process, was electrocuted. There appears to be no irregularity on the part of worker or officer in this behalf.” 8. The enquiry report clearly indicates that the victim was a consumer of the Company. The report mentions about the victim allegedly indulging in correction of the defect in the service wire illegally, without informing the Company. The enquiry report, however, does not refer to any material basis for arriving at such conclusion. 9. Mr Vinay Kirti Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Company has submitted that the Guidelines dated 15.06.2019 contain dispute redressal mechanism and provide for an appeal in case of rejection of any claim for payment of compensation. He has submitted that the petitioner ought to have approached the appellate authority instead of coming to this Court by filing the present writ application. 10. He has submitted that the petitioner ought to have approached the appellate authority instead of coming to this Court by filing the present writ application. 10. For the reason that the entire case of the Company to reject the petitioner’s claim for compensation is based on an enquiry report mentioned in the impugned order itself and the Court, in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, proceeded to call for the original records and has examined the original records, it does not deem it proper to relegate the petitioner to the forum of appeal after having examined all the materials on record including the original records of the Company. We are of the further opinion that it will be an exercise in futility if, at this stage, the petitioner is relegated to the appellate forum after the Court has seen the said enquiry report which is the basis for the impugned decision of the Company and which is based on no material at all. 11. In view of the admitted facts, as noted above, the impugned decision of the Company to deny compensation to the petitioner is held to be unsustainable. A bare perusal of Regulation 4 of the Regulation indicates that compensation under the said provisions can be denied only when it is established that the electrical accident primarily was not due to failure of the licensee or the generating Company to meet the standard of performance but was a direct or proximate result of intervention of some extraneous reason or cause. There is no specific finding in this regard based on any cogent material. In such circumstance, the manner in which the petitioner has been denied the compensation, in the Court’s opinion, is arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, unsustainable. 12. This application is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 30.06.2020 (Annexure 5), to the extent it relates to denial of compensation to the petitioner consequent upon death of the petitioner’s husband, due to electrical accident, is set aside. In view of the admitted facts, as noted above, the Respondent-Company is directed to pay to the petitioner compensation in accordance with the provision under Chapter III of the Regulations. 13. The Managing Director of the Company (Respondent No 1) is directed to ensure that the amount of compensation is paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 14. 13. The Managing Director of the Company (Respondent No 1) is directed to ensure that the amount of compensation is paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 14. Let original records, produced before this Court, be returned to Mr Vinay Kirti Singh, learned senior counsel for the Company. 15. There shall be no order as to costs.