JUDGEMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. Heard Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of the appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner a compensation amounting to Rs. 45,000,00/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident, on the account of the electrocution suffered by him, which led to the amputation of his left leg and three toes from his right feet, causing him to suffer 60% permanent loco motor disability. 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 03.03.2021, the petitioner while working as a Carpenter on the roof of the garage belonging to one Shri. Jerome Rochhunga at Tumpuiveng, Kolasib came into contact with a line and loose hanging high voltage overhead 11 KV electric lines passing at a height of about 3ft. above the garage. Due to the electrocution, the petitioner suffered grievous burns on his neck, left shoulder and back and his left leg causing the damage and dead of the muscle tissues. The petitioner was taken to the District hospital, Kolasib, however, due to the seriousness of his injuries, he was referred to Civil hospital, Aizawl. However, since no bed was available at Civil hospital, Aizawl he was admitted to Aizawl hospital and Research Centre, Khatla where he was treated nd rd for his wounds and the 2 and 3 toe of his right leg was amputated. He was discharged from the hospital and admitted for surgery at State Referral hospital, Falkawn, ZMC on 16.03.2021, where his left leg was amputated below the knee on 09.04.2021 and he was discharged from the hospital on 27.04.2021. Later, on 11.10.2021, the petitioner was again admitted at the District hospital, Kolasib requiring further treatment of his right foot and discharged on 16.10.2021. Thereafter, he was required to be admitted on and off at the District hospital, Kolasib since his burns and the amputation of his leg required further follow-up treatments. On 30.06.2021, the Enquiry Officer issued a police verification report regarding the incident, wherein it was found that the 11 KV line was hanging very loosely at about 3 ft. from the roof of the garage. The height of the garage was about 8 ft. On 30.06.2021, the Enquiry Officer issued a police verification report regarding the incident, wherein it was found that the 11 KV line was hanging very loosely at about 3 ft. from the roof of the garage. The height of the garage was about 8 ft. from the ground and the cause of the accident was found to be due to the loose/low hanging of the live 11 KV line. Since no financial assistance was granted to the petitioner for the pain and injury suffered by him, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition claiming for compensation of Rs. 45,00,000/-. 4. Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the following heads:- A. Non pecuniary damages (General damages) (i) Damages for pain, suffering, trauma & mental agony = Rs. 5 Lakhs (ii) Loss of expectation of life = Rs. 5 Lakhs (iii) Loss of normal life amenities = Rs. 5 Lakhs TOTAL = Rs. 15 Lakhs B. Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Medical Expenses (including hospitalization, Doctor’s fees, medicines, surgical operations, nurse treatment, skin grafting, transportation, laboratory charges, hospital diet and miscellaneous expenditures) = Rs. 5 Lakhs (ii) Loss of future earnings due to Permanent Disability = Rs. 20 Lakhs (iii) Future treatment expenses (Including prosthetic leg, crutches, special chair & table etc.) = Rs. 5 Lakhs Total = Rs. 30 Lakhs Grand Total (A+B) = Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupess forty five lakhs) only 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 at Chapter III deals with the general safety requirements. He submits that the Regulation 12 provides for the general safety requirements pertaining to constructions, installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric supply lines and apparatus and submits that regular inspection and maintenance has to be done as per Regulation 13 deals with Service lines and apparatus on consumer’s premises and Regulation 31 states that periodical inspection and testing of installations periodically has to be done by the Electric Inspector. At Chapter VII of the same Regulation, deals with the safety requirements for overhead lines, underground cables and generatingstations to be insulated and protected by the supplier. At Chapter VII of the same Regulation, deals with the safety requirements for overhead lines, underground cables and generatingstations to be insulated and protected by the supplier. He also pointed out that Regulation 61(2) provides that where an overhead line of voltage, exceeding 650 V passes above or adjacent to any building or part of a building it shall have on the basis of maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part of the building immediately under such line, of not less than 3.7 metres for lines of voltages exceeding 650 Volts upto and including 33,000 Volts. He also led this court to Rule 80(1) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which provides that all high or extra-high voltage overhead line passing above or adjacent to any building or part of a building must have on the basis of maximum sag a vertical clearance of not less than 3.7 metres (12.1391 feet) above the highest part of the building immediately under such lines. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was a Carpenter by profession earning Rs. 750/- per day and is the main bread winner of his family which includes two minor children. After the amputation of his left leg, he is rendered helpless being 60% permanently disabled for the rest of his life, wherein the petitioner is only 24 years old at the time of the accident. He therefore prayed that the petitioner has been derived to earn his livelihood and his fundamental right to live his life with liberty and dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated due to the gross negligence on the part of the respondents. The learned counsel thus prays that the petitioner may be compensated with the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- which is just and fair compensation considering the pain and suffering of the petitioner. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Apex court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 389 and the judgment of the Division Bench of Cuttack High Court in T. Bimala Vs. C.M.C, Cuttack & Ors ., reported in 2015 (II) ILR – CUT- 1 and the decision of the Single Bench of Madras High Court in S. Ruckmani&Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Limited & Ors . reported in (2013) 8 SCC 389 and the judgment of the Division Bench of Cuttack High Court in T. Bimala Vs. C.M.C, Cuttack & Ors ., reported in 2015 (II) ILR – CUT- 1 and the decision of the Single Bench of Madras High Court in S. Ruckmani&Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Limited & Ors . in W.P. No. 40171 of 2015 dated 28.01.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decisions of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Zothanpuia Vs. State in WP(C) No. 132/2018 dated 07.02.2020 and in Lalrintluangi & Ors. Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors. in WP(C) No. 36/2020 dated 08.04.2022. Vanlaltawmpui vs. State of Mizoram and ors. in WP(C) No. 80/2023 dated 13.12.2023. 7. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand submitted that the said 11 KV line is the PHE feeder line, emanating from 33 KV Sub-Station, Project Veng, Kolasib meant for providing power supply to PHE pumping at Tuichhuahen. She submitted that the said 11 KV line was constructed some time during the year 1996-1998 and the operation and maintenance of the line was handed over to Public Health Engineer Department and therefore, the mentioned line is not maintained by the Power & Electricity Department as of today but maintained by the Public Health Department, Kolasib WATSAN Division since 1998 till date. The acknowledgement to this effect is also duly made by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department vide letter dated 22.08.2023. 8. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that when the line was constructed some time back in 1998 by the Power and Electricity Department and at the time of completion of the construction and handling over of the 11 KV line to Public Health Engineering Department, it conform to all the requirement and para-meters of the Indian Electricity Rules. She submitted that as per the vague information received, the garage was constructed sometime in the year 2018 i.e., after 20 years of the construction of the 11 KV line and that the owner of the garage was negligent in his construction whereas, when the line was constructed, the concerned department had observed all the guidelines and rules, where clearance from vertical horizontal was free from other encroachment at the time of the construction. She further submitted that the State of Mizoram, Department of Power & Electricity had issued a notification th dated 13 April, 2021 in the interest of general public fixing the quantum of ex- gratia payable to families and victims of the electrical accident annexed as Annexure 11, under which the petitioner can claim compensation. She submitted that the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and unreasonable. 9. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have also perused the documents on record. It is not a disputed fact that on 03.03.2021, the petitioner while working as a Carpenter on the roof of the garage belonging to one Shri. Jerome Rochhunga at Tumpuiveng, Kolasib came into contact with a line and loose hanging high voltage overhead 11 KV electric lines passing at a height of about 3 ft. above the garage. Due to the electrocution, the petitioner suffered grievous burns all over his body, and due to the seriousness of his injuries, he was admitted to nd rd Aizawl hospital and Research Centre, Khatla where the 2 and 3 toe of his right leg was amputated andhis left leg was amputated below the knee at State Referral hospital, Falkawn, ZMC on 16.03.2021 which resulted in his 60% permanent loco motor disability. A certificate of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disability, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India issued by the Medical Authority, Kolasib, to that effect is also enclosed. 10. The police verification report dated 30.06.2021 is also not disputed. The verification report stated that the 11 KV line was hanging very loosely at about 3 ft. from the roof of the garage and the height of the garage was about 8 ft. from the ground. The cause of the accident was found to be due to the loose/low hanging of the live 11 KV line. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner is entitled to be paid compensation due to the fact that he was seriously injured due to the loose/low hanging of the live 11 KV line. 11. It is seen that Regulation 12, of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010, provides as follows:- “12. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner is entitled to be paid compensation due to the fact that he was seriously injured due to the loose/low hanging of the live 11 KV line. 11. It is seen that Regulation 12, of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010, provides as follows:- “12. General safety requirements, pertaining to construction, installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric supply lines apparatus:- (1) 'All Electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient rating for power, insulation and estimated fault current of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty circle which they may be required to perform under the environmental conditions of installation, and shall be constructed, installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property'. “32. Periodic inspection and testing of installations. – (1) The periodic inspection and testing of installation of voltage above the notified voltage belonging to the owner or supplier or consumer, as the case may be, shall be carried out by the Electrical Inspector: Provided that the electrical installation below or equal to the notified voltage shall be self-certified by the owner or supplier or consumer, as the case may be. (2) The periodicity of electrical inspection by the Electrical Inspector or the self-certification by the supplier, owner or consumer shall be as directed by the Appropriate Government: Provided that the periodicity of electrical inspection and self-certification shall not exceed five years.” “62. Clearance from buildings of lines of voltage and service lines not exceeding 650 V. – (1) An overhead line shall not cross over an existing building as far as possible and no building shall be constructed under an existing overhead line. Clearance from buildings of lines of voltage and service lines not exceeding 650 V. – (1) An overhead line shall not cross over an existing building as far as possible and no building shall be constructed under an existing overhead line. (2) Where an overhead line of voltage not exceeding 650 V passes above or adjacent to or terminates on any building, the following minimum clearances from any accessible point, on the basis of maximum sag, shall be observed, namely: – (i) for any flat roof, open balcony, varandahroof and lean-to-roof, – (a) when the line passes above the building, a vertical clearance of 2.5 metre from the highest point; and (b) when the line passes adjacent to the building, a horizontal clearance of 1.2 metre from the nearest point; (ii) for pitched roof, – (a) when the line passes above the building, a vertical clearance of 2.5 metre immediately under the line; and (b) when the line passes adjacent to the building, a horizontal clearance of 1.2 metre.” 12. It is seen that the Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. ShailKumari reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 : held that “7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under 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. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions. 9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English common law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher [(1868) 3 HL 330 : (1861-73) All ER Rep 1] . Blackburn, J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision : (All ER p. 7E-F) “[T]he true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” .......................... “12. “12. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [ (1987) 1 SCC 395 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 37] this Court has gone even beyond the rule of strict liability by holding that : (SCC p. 421, para 31) Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the 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 Rylands v. Fletcher [(1868) 3 HL 330 : (1861-73) All ER Rep 1] .” 13. The Apex Court in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 , while considering payment of compensation under the Railways Act observed that:- “40. The decision in M.C. Mehta's case (supra) related to a concern working for private profit. However, in our opinion the same principle will also apply to statutory authorities (like the railways), public corporations or local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit. 41. It is true that attempts to apply the principle of Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) against public bodies have not on the whole succeeded vide Administrative Law by P.P. Craig, 2nd Edn. p. 446, mainly because of the idea that a body which acts not for its own profit but for the benefit of the community should not be liable. However, in our opinion, this idea is based on a misconception. Strict liability has no element of moral censure. It is because such public bodies benefit the community that it is unfair to leave the result of a non-negligent accident to lie fortuitously on a particular individual rather than to spread it among the community generally.” 14. However, in our opinion, this idea is based on a misconception. Strict liability has no element of moral censure. It is because such public bodies benefit the community that it is unfair to leave the result of a non-negligent accident to lie fortuitously on a particular individual rather than to spread it among the community generally.” 14. Thus, in the present case, though the respondents have mentioned that the liability lies on the third person who is the owner of the building, who had constructed his garage/building sometime in the year 2018 i.e., after 20 years of the construction of the 11 KV line and that the owner of the garage was negligent in his construction, however, this court finds that the concerned department still has the responsibility to conduct periodic inspection and testing of installations which appears not to be done in the instant case. It is also seen that there is no mention of the concerned authorities taking any steps to prevent the owner of the building, from constructing his building beyond the permitted height and therefore are still held liable in the instant case. This court, thus finds that a person injured by the negligent act of others is definitely entitled to general damages for non-pecuniary loss such as pain, suffering and loss of amenities and also pecuniary loss. It is however seen that the petitioner in the instant case has failed to provide any vouchers or bill to show the amount he has incurred as medical expenses. 15. This court also finds that though the petitioner has incurred 60% Loco motor disability however, the Apex court inthe Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. , reported in (2010) 10 SCC 343 , held that the learned Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability. The second step is to ascertain his vocation, profession and nature of his work before the accident as also his age. The second step is to ascertain his vocation, profession and nature of his work before the accident as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disablement, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions he was earlier carrying on or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or continue to earn his livelihood. 16. This court also finds that the learned counsel has calculated the compensation payable to the petitioner by relying on the judgment of the Apex court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (supra), however, this court finds that the facts and circumstances of the cited case is different and not applicable in the instant case . In the cited case, the petitioner was a film and TV actress whose face was completely disfigured and thus considering the nature of her vocation she was awarded 100% for functional disability. 17. The Apex court in Jagdish v. Mohan , reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 1347 also held that; “8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects: (i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident; (ii) Loss of income including future income; (iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities; (iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and (v) Loss of expectation of life.“ Taking the above into consideration, this court finds that a just and reasonable compensation payable to the petitioner should be calculated applying the same yardstick as in motor accident claims cases. 18. In view of the above, this court finds that the petitioner was aged 24 years and was earning his livelihood as a carpenter earning Rs. 18. In view of the above, this court finds that the petitioner was aged 24 years and was earning his livelihood as a carpenter earning Rs. 750 per day before the incident and though the petition had his left leg amputated and his two toes removed from his right foot, it appears that he is not totally incapacitated to earn his livelihood by the use of his hands. Thus, this court find that even if the petitioner was restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or continue to earn his livelihood and therefore, find that he would have suffered 50% disability in respect of his earning capacity. 19. In view of the above the just and reason compensation is calculated as follows; Future loss of income due to disability if the petitioner is taken as 50% disability. If the earning of the petitioner as a carpenter is taken as Rs.750/ per day, this Court, however, finds that a person working as a carpenter is also not expected to be engaged all 30 days of the month, thus, this Court finds it reasonable if his monthly income can be calculated to be approximately Rs. 17250/- (subtracting 7 days from 30 days). The petitioner was aged 24 years thus, the multiplier applicable would be 18. This court thus finds that a just and reasonable compensation would be as follows: A. Pecuniary damages (i) Loss of future earnings due to Permanent Disability= 17250x 12 x 18 X 50%=Rs. 1863000/- (ii) Medical Expenses (including hospitalization and hospital diet etc.) =Rs. 200000/- (iii) Future treatment expenses such as prosthetic leg, crutches etc = Rs. 200000/- Total = Rs. 2263000/- B. Non pecuniary damages (i) Damages for pain, suffering, trauma & mental agony = Rs. 2 Lakhs (ii) Loss of expectation of life = Rs. 2 Lakhs (iii) Loss of normal life amenities = Rs. 1 Lakhs TOTAL = Rs. 5 Lakhs Grand Total (A+B) = Rs. 27,63,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs, sixty three thousand) only 20. It is seen from the submissions of the parties that the petitioner has not received any amount for the injuries sustain by him till date. 2 Lakhs (iii) Loss of normal life amenities = Rs. 1 Lakhs TOTAL = Rs. 5 Lakhs Grand Total (A+B) = Rs. 27,63,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs, sixty three thousand) only 20. It is seen from the submissions of the parties that the petitioner has not received any amount for the injuries sustain by him till date. Thus, from the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, this court finds that Public Health Engineer Department is liable to compensate the petitioner for the injuries sustained by the petitioner on being electrocuted by a live wire . The Public Health Engineer Department is to pay the petitioner a compensation amounting to Rs. 27,63,000/- (Rupess Twenty seven lakhs, sixty three thousand) only - along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the incident on the account of the electrocution suffered by him within two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. 21. WP(C) 51 of 2023 according stands disposed of as above.