The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.10745 of 2007 Dated 29th June, 2010 Between: A.Uma Devi and another. …Petitioner And The A.P.State Electricity Board, rep. by its Secretary and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.T.Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Mr.O.Manoher Reddy, SC for AP Transco. The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare that the husband of petitioner No.1 died due to negligence of the respondents in leaving live electrical wire on the earth without complying with the safeguards prescribed under the statutory rules. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay compensation to a tune of Rs.20 lakhs for the premature death of the husband of petitioner No.1 due to negligent act of the respondents, by declaring the action of the respondents in not paying such compensation as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. I have heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioners are widow and son of late Srinivasa Reddy, who died due to electrocution on 06-09-2002. Alleging negligence on the part of the respondents as the cause of the death, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition for the above-mentioned reliefs. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. In the absence of denial of the petitioners’ allegation, it is reasonable to presume that the said Srinivasa Reddy has died due to electric shock. A claim for compensation, ordinarily, is required to be raised before a common law Court. It is only in extraordinary situations that the Constitutional Courts entertain such claims. The reason for reluctance of the superior Courts to entertain such claims is that the parties are required to adduce evidence on various contentious issues, such as, whether the death occurred on account of negligence on the part of the opposite party and what is the appropriate quantum of compensation etc. In the absence of such evidence, the claims for compensation cannot be adjudicated. In my opinion, filing of a civil suit is necessary for rendering a finding as to the cause of the death and also for determination of just and reasonable compensation based on the evidence to be adduced by both the parties. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to avail the common law remedy of a civil suit. However, as the respondents are liable to pay ex gratia in terms of the departmental policy, the same shall be paid to the petitioners as per the quantum prescribed at the time of the death of the said Srinivasa Reddy, if such an ex gratia has not already been paid, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are entitled to receive such ex gratia without prejudice to their right to sue the licensee and its functionaries for compensation by availing appropriate legal remedy. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.13657 of 2004, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th June, 2010 lur