JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. S. U. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5 and Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3, 6, 7, 8 & 9. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed claiming compensation on account of the death of the petitioner's husband in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 along with adequate interest as compensation for the loss suffered. 3. For deciding the entitlement of the petitioner in the instant proceedings, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. The case of the petitioner herein is that her husband being a temporary labour working under the respondent authorities was engaged by the respondent No.10 and one Govinda Mudoi to repair a faulty electrical transformer situated at Hawaipur, Hojai. It has been alleged that before starting of the repairing of the faulty transformer, the respondent No.10 called the control room of the Department over phone to disconnect the electric supply. After disconnecting the electric supply, the husband of the petitioner was repairing the faulty transformer under the supervision of the respondent No.10. But the officials of the control room had restored the electric supply without any information at the time of repairing for which the husband of the petitioner got electrocuted and died on the spot. On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR was also filed by the wife by the petitioner before the Officer-in-Charge of Hojai Police Station and the same was registered and numbered as Hojai P.S. No.472/2019 corresponding to GR Case No.1537/2019 under Section 304 of the IPC. 4. The materials on record further show that postmortem was conducted upon the husband of the petitioner and it was opined in the postmortem report that the husband of the petitioner expired due to cardiac arrest as a result of high voltage current passing through the body. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No.5 with a prayer for granting compensation for the death of her husband on account of negligence of the Power Electrical Department of the Respondent APDCL which led to the unfortunate death of the petitioner's husband. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No.5 with a prayer for granting compensation for the death of her husband on account of negligence of the Power Electrical Department of the Respondent APDCL which led to the unfortunate death of the petitioner's husband. The said representation was forwarded to the concerned respondent authorities. However, no payment was made to the petitioner in terms with the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accident), Regulation 2019 (for short, “the Regulation of 2019’). It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction that the petitioner be granted the compensation in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 which is based upon the Regulation of 2019. 5. It is seen from the materials on record that this Court vide an order dated 06.04.2023 had issued notice. The records reveal that the APDCL authorities have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent No.4 on 04.03.2024 enclosing the Electrical Accident Report. It is relevant to take note of that the Electrical Accident Report so brought on record by the respondent No.4 by the affidavit dated 04.03.2024 was not in accordance with law, and as such, this Court vide an order 19.08.2024 directed the respondent No.4 to submit an Electrical Accident Report in accordance with the applicable relevant provisions of law. 6. It is seen that pursuant thereto, an affidavit was filed by the respondent No.4 on 12.11.2024 wherein an Electrical Accident Report dated 25.09.2024 was brought on record. In the said Electrical Accident Report dated 25.09.2024, it was opined that the reason which led to the accident appears to be on account of contravention of Regulation 19 (3) of the then Central Electric Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulation, 2010 on the part of the victim and contravention of the Regulation 46 (7) of the then Central Electric Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulation, 2010 on the part of the PDCL. 7. In the backdrop of the above, the question therefore arises before this Court is that whether this Court can direct payment of compensation in terms with the Regulation of 2019. 8. Mr. 7. In the backdrop of the above, the question therefore arises before this Court is that whether this Court can direct payment of compensation in terms with the Regulation of 2019. 8. Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the APDCL submitted that although no affidavit has been filed by the APDCL authorities, but taking into account the Electrical Accident Report, which stipulates that the electrical accident partly occurred due to the fault of the husband of the petitioner, the APDCL Authorities cannot be imposed with the liability in terms with the Regulation of 2019. 9. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondents at length. For deciding the above dispute, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that the Regulation, 2019. This Regulation of 2019 was made in terms with the mandate of Section 57(2) and 57(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. In terms with said Regulation of 2019, Chapter III of the Regulation of 2019 deals with the compensation. Section 5 of the Regulation of 2019 stipulates that the Licensee/the Generating Company including the CPP shall be liable to pay compensation as specified in the Regulation of 2019 to the person affected or his dependants for loss of animal or human life or injury to human beings and animals in consequences of an electrical accident provided the electrical accident is attributable to the fault/negligence of the Licensee/Generating Company/CPP. The proviso to the said Section stipulates that if the loss of human life is due to suicide or homicide, or injury to a human being is due to an attempt to commit suicide or homicide the licensee/generating company/CPP shall not be liable to pay any compensation in terms with the Regulation of 2019. The quantum of compensation payable as per Section 6 of the Regulation of 2019 is mentioned in Schedule B to the said Regulations. 10. This Court also finds relevant to refer to Section 9 of the Regulations of 2019 which stipulates that the right of any person to claim compensation as stipulated in Section 5 to 8 of the Regulation of 2019 shall not affect the right of any person to recover compensation payable under any other law of the time being in force. This Court also finds relevant to refer to Section 9 of the Regulations of 2019 which stipulates that the right of any person to claim compensation as stipulated in Section 5 to 8 of the Regulation of 2019 shall not affect the right of any person to recover compensation payable under any other law of the time being in force. However the amount paid as compensation under the Regulation of 2019 shall be duly deducted from such compensation payable under any other law so as to avoid double payment by the licensee/Generating Company/CPP. This Section 9 of the Regulation of 2019 is very relevant inasmuch as the object behind the Regulation of 2019 can be very well discerned. In the opinion of this Court, upon perusal of the Regulation of 2019 and more particularly Chapter III and IV of the Regulation of 2019, it shows that a victim or his dependants are to be provided prompt redressal on account of the damage, injury or death if it occurs on account of the fault of the licensee/Generating Company/CPP. The manner of filing applications, the urgent mandate for payment of compensation as per Section 18 of the Regulation of 2019 as well as the interest to be paid if there is a delay in terms with Section 20 of the Regulations are clear pointers to the requirement of prompt relief to redress the aggrieved if there is a fault on the part of the Licensee/Generating Company/CPP. 11. It is very pertinent to mention that the said Section 5 of the Regulation of 2019 does not mention that the electrical accident should be solely attributable to the fault/negligence of the licensee/Generating Company/CPP. It stipulates merely that the liability would accrue if there is an electrical accident attributable to the fault/negligence of the licensee/ Generating Company/CPP. It is also pertinent to keep in mind that the provisions of the Regulation of 2019 are in the nature of welfare legislation. 12. The electrical accident report categorically mentions that there was a fault/negligence on the part of the APDCL authorities although not solely. Under such circumstances, taking into account the language used in Section 5 of the Regulations of 2019, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner herein would be entitle to the compensation in terms with Schedule B of the Regulations of 2019. 13. Under such circumstances, taking into account the language used in Section 5 of the Regulations of 2019, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner herein would be entitle to the compensation in terms with Schedule B of the Regulations of 2019. 13. A perusal of Schedule B of the Regulation of 2019 would show that the compensation to be payable on account of loss of human life is Rs. 4,00,000/-. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the petitioner herein would be entitled to the amount Rs. 4,00,000/-from the APDCL Authorities. 14. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition thereby directing APDCL authorities and more particularly the Chairman cum Managing Director to ensure that the petitioner receives the compensation of the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served upon the Respondent No.3. It is further observed that in the circumstance, the amount directed to be paid within the time stipulated herein is not paid, the petitioner would be entitled to interest in terms with Section 20 of the Regulation of 2019. 15. Before parting, this Court observes that the petitioner herein would be at liberty to avail other remedies to seek compensation in spite of the compensation awarded herein. 16. With the above observations and directions the instant writ petition stands disposed of.