WA 268/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BD AGARWAL Amitava Roy, J The instant appeal is by the father, whose son aged about 4 year s met an accidental death out of electrocution on 20.08.2004, while he was playi ng with his friends and in the process came in contact with a live electric wire . Not being satisfied with the amount of Rs. 1 lac towards compensation granted by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2010 , the instant appeal has been filed seeking an enhancement of the quantum. We have heard Mr. Gias Uddin, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. BD Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Assam State Electricity Board ( for short hereafter referred to as the Board) assisted by Mr. D Bhattacharjee, A dvocate. As stated hereinabove, the fatal accident took place at about 4. 30 p.m. on 20.08.2004 and the appellant’s son died on his way to the hospital. The police registered U.D. Case No. 59/2004 and on the completion of the investi gation certified the death out of electrocution. The appellant’s application fo r compensation with the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon failed to evoke any response . The concerned authorities of the ASEB also, according to him, were indifferen t. The Chief Electrical Inspector, Assam, however, conducted an inquiry into th e incident and submitted a report on 15.02.2010, in which he, inter alia, recode d that the provisions of Rule 29 & 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, had been contravened by the ASEB. He also affirmed the incident of electrocution a nd the death of the appellant’s son therefrom. After hearing the learned counse l for the parties and noticing, in particular, the rates of compensation fixed b y the ASEB in respect of a victim of electrocution accident not in the employmen t of the ASEB, the learned Single Judge awarded an amount of Rs. 1 lac, having r egard to the age of the deceased. In quantifying the amount, the learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed that the appellant had not questioned the validity or acceptability of the Board’s guidelines. Mr. Gias Uddin, has urged with reference to the decision of a Si ngle Judge of this Court in Khiradabala Nath & Ors. Vs. Assam State Electricity Board & Ors., 2008 (4) GLT 116, that as the principles for computation of compen sation as enumerated in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short also referred to as the Act) are applicable to the facts of the instant case, the amount awarded ought to be suitably enhanced. Mr. Das, as against this has urged that as the instant writ peti tion is in the nature of a public law remedy, scrupulous adherence to the princi ples of quantification of compensation under the Act is unwarranted and, therefo re, the plea for enhancement of the awarded amount is misplaced. While weighing the rival submissions, we had queried from the le arned counsel for the appellant as to whether, if by upholding his submission th e amount of compensation is enhanced suitably by us, the appellant would still p ursue his remedy in this regard in any other forum, he has replied in the negati ve. The materials on record demonstrate the death of the appellant’s son out of electrocution on 20.08.2004. There is no contrary to the view expre ssed by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Assam about the failure on the part of t he ASEB to maintain the electric transmission line as per the aforementioned pro visions of the Rules. Having regard to the nature of the activity in which the Board is engaged, it is no longer res integra that the principle of strict liabi lity is applicable. In Khiradabala Nath & Ors. (Supra), we have noticed that a Singl e Judge of this Court had held the view that the principles envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are applicable to cases arising out of the fatal accid ent too and by invoking the same, the amount of compensation therein was quantif ied. The instant proceeding being one by way of public law remedy, in our view, the principles of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are not strictly appl icable, though, in an appropriate fact situation the spirit thereof may be drawn for the purpose of doing complete justice. It cannot be gain said that in any view of the matter, the amount of compensation to be awarded has to be just. The deceased in the instant case is one aged about 4 years. The compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is Rs. 1 lac. Though, in the instant proceeding the amount of compensation is necessarily in the form of a pa lliative, we feel inclined, having regard to the undertaking given by the appell ant that he would not pursue this issue before any other form to enhance the amo unt of compensation, the rates relatable thereto as formulated by the ASEB notwi thstanding. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the v iew that an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One lac and fifty thousand only) towards c ompensation would meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly. It is submitted at the Bar that the amount awarded by the learne d Single Judge has since been paid. We, therefore, order that the enhanced amou nt of Rs.50, 000/-, awarded by us be paid by the ASEB within a period of 30 days herefrom, failing which it would carry an interest of 9% per annum thereon till realisation. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.