WP(C) 4562/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ASOK POTSANGBAM Heard Mr S Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr D Bhattacharjee, learn ed counsel for ASEB. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming for compens ation for the death of his wife, late Ulupi Pator, due to electrocution on 30.6. 2006 on coming into contact with a live electric wire, which was lying naked on earth near a electric pole. It is alleged in the writ petition that due to sheer negligence and failure to take mandatory care and proper maintenance of live e lectric wires through which electric power is transmitted from place to place, t he accident causing the death of the petitioner’s wife had occurred. The claim m ade in this writ petition is for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000.00 for the loss of life o f the wife of the petitioner. Pursuant to an order dated 15.9.2006 passed by this Court, the Chief Ele ctrical Inspector cum Advoser, Government of Assam, has held an enquiry as to wh ether there was any negligence on the part of the ASEB leading to death of the w ife of the petitioner. A report dated 28.5.2007 was submitted by the Senior Elec trical Inspector, Government of Assam, wherein a finding was recorded to the eff ect that there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, for preventive measures, lack of checking and corrective maintenanc e works and as a result the accident in question was caused. The Senior Electric al Inspector, Government of Assam, has also held that there was violation of the provisions of Rules 29, 30 and 42 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, on the part of the owner of the supply system that is ASEB and this report was submitt ed along with an affidavit. The respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3 have filed their affidavit disputing the a ge of the victim and also denying that the wife of the petitioner died due to co ming into contact with the live electric wire which was lying naked on earth. Th erefore, there was no negligence on the part of the respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3. Mr Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that at the time of the death of the wife of the petitioner, she was 45 years of age and she left be hind four children between the age of 10 to 18 years. The learned counsel has dr awn my attention to the Post Mortem Report (Annexure- B to the writ petition) wh erein the age of the victim was recorded as 45 years and, therefore, there can b e no dispute about the age of the victim. Mr Das further submits that on the fac e of the report submitted by the Senior Electrical Inspector, Government of Assa m, the denial of negligence on the part of the respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3 cannot be accepted by this Court, more so, in absence of any dispute on the finding re corded by the Senior Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam. Thus, there is no option for this Court but to accept and rely upon the report of the Senior El ectrical Inspector, Government of Assam. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there was negligence for preventive measures, lack of checking and corrective mainte nance works and non-compliance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Rul es, 1956, on the part of the respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3, leading to the instantan eous death of the petitioner’s wife due to electrocution. After the finding of this Court as above, the next question to be determ ined by this Court is the quantum of compensation. According to Mr Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the ASEB, there is an Office Memorandum wherein the rate of compensation is prescribed in the followi ng manner- Upto 20 years of age = Rs. 1.00 Lakh Above 20 years and Upto 55 years of age = Rs. 1.50 Lakh Above 55 years of = Rs. 1.00 Lakh age Mr Bhattacharjee has fairly submitted that if we go by the multiplier system of Rs. 15,000/- per annum (for housewife) as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the calculation would come to Rs, 2,25,000/-. But so far as the ASEB is concerned, t he petitioner is entitled to quantum of compensation as prescribed in the Offic e Memorandum. I have heard both sides on the quantum of compensation. The Office Memor andum is made only to guide the ASEB and it cannot be taken as the final authori ty for determination of quantum of compensation. This Court is of the opinion th at the ends of justice would be served better, if an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded as compensation to the petitioner on account of death of his wife due t o electrocution by taking into account the amount of Rs. 1.50 Lakh as per Office Memorandum as well as the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per multiplier system. It is ordered accordingly. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be deposited by the respond ent authorities in the Registry of this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is entitl ed to withdraw the aforesaid amount from the Registrar General of this Court on proper identification. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stand s disposed of.